It has been suggested that the approach taken in "Chee Siok Chin" towards Article 14 goes against the venerable tradition of limited government and constitutional supremacy enshrined in Article 4 of the Constitution, and accords too much deference to the legislative and executive branches of government. Moreover, the phrase "necessary or expedient" arguably should not be interpreted disjunctively, which would only require the State to show that a restriction imposed by Parliament is either "necessary" or "expedient". Since expedience is easily satisfied, this allows for too lenient a standard of judicial review. Such a reading would make the word "necessary" redundant, which goes against the well-known rule that every word in an enactment must be given meaning. Furthermore, it would undermine the value of the word "right" in Article 14.