Talk:Singapore general election, 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
To-do list for Singapore general election, 2006: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Summarise events on Election Day
    • Add more details on Election Day
    • Expand information in election sub-pages
  • Cache news articles as they will expire next year
  • Imporve article to WP:GA standards, FA is too hard for a political article.
  • Send for Peer Review and add it to GA
Singapore general election, 2006 is part of SGpedians' Resources
An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore.
To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] blogger cases are unrelated to the internet regulation

The section on "Influence of the Internet" is about the regulation of political content on the Internet with the MDA directive, which is quite vague, at least before the clarification was made in the Parliament. How the MDA regulation will be enforced is still an open question because there are quite a number of bloggers who apparently are already violating the regulation (by not registering their political website with MDA). On the other hand, the convictions of bloggers posting racist comments are unrelated because: (1) they were charged not under the MDA regulation but under the sedition act which has been around for a long time, (2) they were charged for posting racist remarks, not for political content, (3) sedition act covers all types of media, but the MDA regulation specifically deals with the Internet content. Therefore, the blogger cases are quite unrelated and have no effect on this election. Probably, a more related case (as a precedent) is one that led to the closing down of the (original) SINTERCOM website, but that was quite a while ago and I don't remember the details. --Vsion 05:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The New Democrat

Is the concerned article of The New Democrat available online? --Vsion 06:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is, you may like to check the website for the article. --Terence Ong 14:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Which website? I can't find it. I feel there is a need to verify what exactly was written in the article. For example, does the article explicitly state that the Lees are "dishonest"? It is not entirely clear to me. --Vsion 21:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The party's official website. Well, I'm not sure what the content is as I didn't read any of the articles on the website. --Terence Ong 13:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't find the alleged defamatory article. Anyway, if this goes to trial, the article will be scrutinised in detail. After reading online newspaper reports about the case, I don't think the SDP's article actually use the word "dishonest", but I'm not sure. I'm hoping to get some exact quotes from the article rather than using descriptions based solely on the demand letter. --Vsion 04:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Best to use source from International media sources, if possible. - Mailer Diablo 19:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with internet section

There is a big problem with the influence of the internet section at the bottom of the article. it needs cleaning up Bwithh 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, it was due to a tagging error. --Vsion 04:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page size

The page size is now 62KB long, I suggest we summarise some sections and move the pre-election events to a sub-page as well as the nominations, list of MPs and election results. See United Kingdom general election, 2005 to see how to summarise it. Any suggestions? Who can create a table for every constituency articles as I'm going to create articles for every constituency? P.S. I'm bad at creating tables. --Terence Ong 03:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not move the election result, it is the most important item in the article. --Vsion 18:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is already following some aspects of United Kingdom general election, 2005, if you have realised. But we shouldn't follow it to the letter because the situations are very different, instead try to copy the good points and improve and adapt. Outdated information can be removed, otherwise major summarization should be done after May 6, as the show is not over yet. This was the case for the UK election article, major overhaul was performed only after the election.--Vsion 18:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
For something not too popular, this is gigantic. Skinnyweed 21:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] singapore-elections.com

The website http://www.singapore-elections.com/ is down the whole day already! The error says that "site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit". Poor guy, anyone knows what happened? --Vsion 21:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "First World" debate

I haven't keep track of the "First World" debate until recently; but tried to research and wrote something about it. Can someone please help and check if it is accuate and complete? --Vsion 20:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rally crowd size?

Does anyone know what were the crowd size at the rallies? There is a photo posted at yawningbread site [1] taken at WP's rally at Ubi on 28 April. The crowd was pretty large. --Vsion 21:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can tell the crowd size. Its very hard to count statistics of such things. Well, this idea is not very good. --Terence Ong 03:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to count :D. There are folks who do these things, the professionals such as the police who have to estimate the crowd size for safety and control; and perhaps the press. But not sure if they want to share the information. For the Aljunied's rally, one blogger estimated it at 2,000, another blogger put it at 10,000. If there are other estimates, please post it here for comparison. --Vsion 04:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • SDP @ Woodland Stadium, 29 April. From this picture, I estimate the crowd to be at least 4,000. --Vsion 23:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • WP @ Hougang, 30 April. Picture from yawningbread. I estimates at least 12,000 people inside the photo. Yawningbread gave a much higher estimate. Is there any news report on rally size? --Vsion 05:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The Star estimated it at around 10,000 people, though the pic was on the front page, I don't think it's available online. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 09:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow! finally a source from a press; shall we use it in the article? A non-singapore press; I will take it nonetheless; especially since the estimate is close to mine. Cheers. --Vsion 09:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Gomez issue?

The James Gomez issue is quite a big issue in this election. A mention of it will be good. There are many sources to cite for this issue. --Terence Ong 14:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Are the video and audio from the Election Department shown to the public? --Vsion 04:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
haha... I just catch up with the news from the last two days. You are right, this is hugh. --Vsion 05:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised there has yet to be any mention of this in the article. (NSLE in school) 153.20.95.69 08:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the challenge, Lee's quote is to dare Gomez to sue him or Wong Kan Seng. Lee was a lawyer and is careful with wordings. For some reasons, the CNA report [2] changes it to "WP" suing the "Government". Did CNA mislead or are there other references? For accuracy, I reworded the article to reflect the exact quote.--Vsion 21:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

THE PAP have absolutely NO right to try to sue fellow WP candidate, James Gomez for what actions he had done to the Elections Department as THE PAP DO NOT own the Elections Department!

-Darren Choy Mun Keet

-11,

-Student from Singapore

I know that James Gomez did make some mistakes in the handling of his form, BUT the PAP should not take this as an opportunity to backfire the opposition in a way to win votes. A true politician is one who cares to stand up for the rights of the people of Singapore and not seat down in his/her seat and warm the chair or even WORST critisize others to win votes, is this election exercising TRUE DEMOCRACY?I have to say that it is actually hard to be an outstanding politician who totally cares about the country and its citizens and not backfire opponents who really deserve the seat more than he/she does, BUT THEY MUST keep in mind of the fact that it is the citizens of Singapore's will to vote for you and they all pin hopes on you in hopes that the country will one day soar to extreme heights and you MUST do your job for the country or you are just a DISGRACE to the country.

-Darren Choy Mun Keet

-11,

-Student from Singapore

[edit] Ahmad Khalis

Re "Law Society of Singapore is formally investigating lawyer and Hong Kah GRC MP Ahmad Khalis Abdul Ghani,"

What is Ahmad Khalis being investigated for? Thks --Vsion 04:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] template for result

The table of result is moved to a template. There is a link at the top of the table to edit the table. This will facilitates entering the result later on. Standard practice for buzy page. Cheers. --Vsion 04:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Walkovers"?

I never heard of the term "walkover" used for elections (I live in Canada). Usually a one-person contest is "acclaimed" or "uncontested" here. Is this a term commonly used in the SG media?). Kelvinc 16:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. It has the same meaning as "uncontested". Constituencies which are not challenged are dubbed as walkovers. --202.156.6.54 17:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

How convenient, I just created walkover. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] todo, etc.

This might actually have a chance of being our next featured article (seeing the huge amount of refs) if we organise it enough (and correlate it back to the proper topics). First thing we need to trim this down, but where should we start subpages? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 16:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Too recent. Doubt would make a FA this soon. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I've seen tropical cyclone articles become FA only a month or two after they have occurred. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 06:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
A month or two is enough time. A few days isn't... probably. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Meh, it takes a month to prepare an FA anyway, usually. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 07:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Then get started, lol... ;p -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use Alternative Parties instead of Opposition Parties

The life of an alternative party is not determined by the ruling party as they called them opposition parties. Alternative Parties are determined by the people to become the people's voices in the future. Fernvale 05:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to change terms, I think. The concept is well grounded in a parliamentary system, ie. the UK. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 09:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Opposition party/ies" is a perfectly normal phrase in English, usually being defined as the parties that are not in government. In more complicated situations (e.g. Sweden, where there is a social democratic minority government supported officially by two other parties on many issues) parties that usually support the government depite not being part of it are not called "opposition parties". The situation in Singapore is simple: the PAP is the governing party and the other parties are in opposition. In British English at least, calling a party an "opposition" party is not negatively biased, just a statement of their relationship to the government. Tamino 10:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NCMP section

I like the NCMP section which contains sentences in Singlish, e.g. "The Workers' Party got 44% of the vots for the Group Representation Constituency" and "Twelve of the fifteen members of the CEC voted for Sylvia Lim whether to be the NCMP or not." . However this is an English wiki, so someone might want to edit out the Singlish sentences to proper English so that it makes sense to non-Singlish speakers. --Novelty 04:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm the author of that section. Ok, that type of writing style adapts to me for a long time due to the culture and Singlish is absorbed into some of our proper English grammar. Bear my Singlish influenced English. Sorry about that. I will fix it now. --Terence Ong 05:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You may like to check it now, I believe its now in proper English unless I'm unaware of it. Feel free to edit it, its a Wiki. --Terence Ong 05:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The first 3 sentences still look a bit funny to me, but not in the grammar, just the arrangement of the sentences. I speak Singlish as well, so there isn't too much problem for me to understand it, but this wiki isn't just for people who speak Singlish, so we have to try to make sure that the sentences would make sense to a non-Singaporean. Also, I wonder if it might be beneficial to split up this article to a number of pages... --Novelty 17:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone explain the results to me

Sorry, this page is way too complicated for me ... can someone please summarize how the results come about. Why does the ruling party get 82 out of 84 seats and how do all these walkovers happen? gbrandt 21:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It will be done sooner or later. Regarding your question on why the PAP gets 82 out of 84 seats is that 37 seats (for this year's elections) are uncontested. Walkovers happen when there is no opposition party filling candidates for that constituency. In recent years, walkovers only happen in Group Representation Constituencies as there are only nine single seats left. The opposition always contest all the SMCs and a number of GRCs in recent elections. 82 out of 84 seats? Its just like any other elections. The ruling party returns unopposed in selected constituencies on Nomination Day with the remaining being contested. --Terence Ong 11:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sub-pages

When moving large content to sub-pages, please give notice for a few days, to seek any comments or suggestion. IMO, those content are the "juice" of the election and should be mentioned here, at least in summary form. I reverted the move because (1) it was not discussed (2) the summaries were not provided in the main page, (3) the references in the sub-pages are defunct. --Vsion 04:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have tidied the main article, and remove some outdated content. I'm not sure what to do with the newly created sub-pages, many reference-links in the sub-pages are defunct as a result of the split, and it will take time to amend those links. Also, the summaries are not prepared. These issues should be addressed when performing a split. Nonetheless, I prefer to have a single article, and to gradually remove insignficant content as time passes. --Vsion 05:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
IMO, its a bad idea to remove insignificant content from here. If we want to make this a featured article, then we need to create sub-pages and do a major summary. We shouldn't just remove information by summarising it. Keep the sub-pages and leave the information as it is, let it expand there, the main article will summarise the events into three to four paragraphs. By creating sub-pages, we can cover every corner of the election and giving detailed information on it. These sub-pages will have their references fixed, and a summary will be done shortly. I will be working on it shortly. Once we are done with that, we can copyedit, expand, correct errors and send it for peer review, followed by a FAC. This article has the potential of becoming a featured article, provided everyone can collaborate and make this article meet FA standards. --Terence Ong 15:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Please go ahead as you plan; but please keep those content in this main article until the summaries are ready, so that you can replace the content rather than remove them. --Vsion 06:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I merged the sub-pages, and amend the links, which had taken quite a bit of time. I still don't see the benefit of having the sub-pages, especially since this main article is not summarized. Now there are large sections of duplicated content, and risk inconsistent updates. --Vsion 14:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] keep the rally list

Well, IMO, the information regarding the amount of rallies and their details is useful historically and we should keep it in the article, but perhaps move it to a subpage. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 16:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • okay, keep in subpage, for history. --Vsion 04:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/i/n/Talk%7ESingapore_general_election%2C_2006_07c5.html"