Talk:Chewing gum ban in Singapore
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Chewing gum ban in Singapore has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
 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. |
I added the NPOV dispute box because I believe the article is quite biased to the pro-Singapore Government side. Are there any references to indicate that tourists "enthuse" about the ban, or that people generally agree that the ban is good? Most Singaporeans I have met think that the government is quite heavy-handed. -Ikariotis
- For controversy topics, please feel free to add the other viewpoints to make it balance if you deem necessary. thanks. For the "heavy-handed"ness, is it a general remark, or specific to this ban? --Vsion 21:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- Singaporeans I have met seem to express a great deal of dissatisfaction with their autocratic government. Especially the way it treats its citizens like babies. They view this ban as pretty embarrassing and ridiculous. All I am saying is that, unless there is some evidence to back up the article's claims, perhaps the sentences "Tourists visiting Singapore enthuse about how they no longer need to pick gum off their shoes when walking on the streets. Today, it is generally agreed amongst citizens that the advantages of the ban far outweigh the side-effects." should be removed or changed to "Some tourists visiting Singapore enthuse about how they no longer need to pick gum off their shoes when walking on the streets. Today, it is agreed amongst some citizens that the advantages of the ban far outweigh the side-effects." To me, it just seems that in its current state the article expresses the opinion of one (pro-government) person's opinion and not fact. However, I will let others decide what to do. I am merely expressing my reservations about the tone of the article here in the talk page where others can view them. -Ikariotis
- Help us to restore balance in the article as deemed appriopriate above. I would agree that claims over its acceptance amongst all Singaporeans is a tad pulling it (although we have to be just as careful over claims the reverse as well). Also, comments by Singaporeans overseas to their foreign counterparts sometimes have to be taken with a pinch of salt. We do generally know that the ban on chewing gum is perhaps the best-known example of the nanny state that Singapore is to the international audience, and lamenting over this ban is often a reflection of a much wider sense of disapproval over any aspect of Singaporean governance and social life.--Huaiwei 08:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- I would like to clear a misunderstanding here. Although I am the main contributor, the two sentences that Ikariotis quoted are actually written by another contributor, not me. So it has in fact reduce the dominance of my perspective on this article and, in this sense, make it more "balanced". There is no reason for me to assume that the other contributor has a "pro-government" agenda, rather I would think that they are based on anecdotal evidence, similar to Ikariotis attributing his opinions to comments by some overseas Singaporeans. Knowing the local context can provide additional insights on this issue. Singapore residents live in very close proximity to each other, and given the obsession with hygiene, people do recognize some of the benefits of this ban. But again, these quoted sentences are not written by me, and I don't think I should suppress them. --Vsion 10:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Help us to restore balance in the article as deemed appriopriate above. I would agree that claims over its acceptance amongst all Singaporeans is a tad pulling it (although we have to be just as careful over claims the reverse as well). Also, comments by Singaporeans overseas to their foreign counterparts sometimes have to be taken with a pinch of salt. We do generally know that the ban on chewing gum is perhaps the best-known example of the nanny state that Singapore is to the international audience, and lamenting over this ban is often a reflection of a much wider sense of disapproval over any aspect of Singaporean governance and social life.--Huaiwei 08:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Singaporeans I have met seem to express a great deal of dissatisfaction with their autocratic government. Especially the way it treats its citizens like babies. They view this ban as pretty embarrassing and ridiculous. All I am saying is that, unless there is some evidence to back up the article's claims, perhaps the sentences "Tourists visiting Singapore enthuse about how they no longer need to pick gum off their shoes when walking on the streets. Today, it is generally agreed amongst citizens that the advantages of the ban far outweigh the side-effects." should be removed or changed to "Some tourists visiting Singapore enthuse about how they no longer need to pick gum off their shoes when walking on the streets. Today, it is agreed amongst some citizens that the advantages of the ban far outweigh the side-effects." To me, it just seems that in its current state the article expresses the opinion of one (pro-government) person's opinion and not fact. However, I will let others decide what to do. I am merely expressing my reservations about the tone of the article here in the talk page where others can view them. -Ikariotis
Contents |
[edit] No actual allowance of personal use quantities of chewing gum
Before my edit, the article stated:
- There is a common misconception that chewing gum is illegal in Singapore. However, the ban only prevents the import and sale of chewing gum, not its consumption. In fact, foreign visitors and returning residents are legally allowed to bring small amounts of chewing gum into the country for personal consumption.
I have since checked with the customs. In an email dated 8 November 2005, Senior Corporate Communications Officer for Director-General of Customs, Singapore Customs, Mr Phua Ree Kee has since confirmed:
- Under the Regulation of Imports and Exports (Chewing Gum) Regulations, except for chewing gum with therapeutic value, the importation into Singapore of any chewing gum is prohibited. The prohibition on the import of chewing gum except for those of therapeutic value is absolute. Therefore, no allowance is given for any person to import them for personal consumption. Under the same regulation, when goods are brought or caused to be brought into Singapore from any place which is outside Singapore, they are deemed to be imported. This is regardless whether the goods are for commercial or trade purposes.
(emphasis mine)
I have since corrected the paragraph to
- A common misconception among citizens is that personal use quantities of chewing gum are allowed into Singapore. However, according to the set of Regulations, "importing" means to "bring or cause to be brought into Singapore by land, water or air from any place which is outside Singapore ..." any goods, even if they are not for purposes of trade. The set of Regulations also does not make any provisions for personal use quantities to be brought into Singapore. Therefore, the bringing into Singapore of chewing gum, of however small quantities for whatever purpose, is prohibited.
along with a footnote.—Goh wz 10:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] This article is terrible.
Did someone from the Government of Singapore write this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baxter42 (talk • contribs) .19:03, December 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Who may he be then? :D--Huaiwei 20:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Biased, biased, biased
This entire article reads like propaganda supporting the ban. There's little or no NPOV and the article can only claim how wonderful it was that the ban worked so well, with such gracious praise from their citizens. The revision of the ban is even written to sound as though it were still effective and worthwhile. Singapore can do no wrong according to the person responsible for this piece. - AWF
- it is only about chewing gum, is it such a big deal? --Vsion 21:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- So do you have evidence showing Singaporeans do not support the ban? That the ban was not effective? Why do individuals like yourself deem any text remotely in agreement with current government policies here to be the product of government lackeys, as thou the entire populance must disagree with every single policy?--Huaiwei 05:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Mmmmm...I think this is more of a reference that tone of the article needs to be moderated somewhat. - Mailer Diablo 15:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- "Huaiwei," Wikipedia should not argue for or against the ban. There are plenty of people who do claim, however, that it's an unnecessary breach into freedom. This article has a strong bias contained within, I'm guessing from individuals such as yourself who blindly support anything they do. It needs to present both viewpoints, not blather on about how "wonderful" banning bubblegum is. I've known individuals from the country, and there seem to be plenty who agree that making a state law in regards to bubblegum is absurd. Not to mention the fact that it's largely regarded as a joke outside the country. - AWF
- For what it's worth, Mailer Diablo is correct. It's about tone and an NPOV. Vsion, I'd direct that question to the Singaporean government and to those who support it. They apparently feel that it is that big of a deal. One more question for Huaiwei as well - you asked for "evidence" which is fair. In return, I'd also like to ask if you have a single objective source to support this: "Tourists visiting Singapore enthuse about how they no longer need to pick gum off their shoes when walking on the streets. Today, it is generally agreed amongst citizens that the advantages of the ban far outweigh the side-effects." - AWF
- "Huaiwei," Wikipedia should not argue for or against the ban. There are plenty of people who do claim, however, that it's an unnecessary breach into freedom. This article has a strong bias contained within, I'm guessing from individuals such as yourself who blindly support anything they do. It needs to present both viewpoints, not blather on about how "wonderful" banning bubblegum is. I've known individuals from the country, and there seem to be plenty who agree that making a state law in regards to bubblegum is absurd. Not to mention the fact that it's largely regarded as a joke outside the country. - AWF
- Mmmmm...I think this is more of a reference that tone of the article needs to be moderated somewhat. - Mailer Diablo 15:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The locals find it very amusing that others make such a big fuss out of it when they themselves don't really care, and US federal trade negotiators would put it on top of the agenda for a billion dollar trade agreement when the market for this single product is so small. While they declared victory when the ban is lifted, practically nobody is chewing the gums. You are correct, it is a joke. Hahaha.... --Vsion 01:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This statement " unlike other countries, where gum is an almost constant annoyant." is clearly written in ignorance. I am not a gum chewer (though do enjoy it occasionally). I have walked the streets of Sydney, Melbourne, New York and Los Angeles and maybe had gum stuck to my shoe 4 times. I'd sooner have gum than the many prostitutes that I understand walk Singapore's streets. I am visiting Singapore for the first time next week - so I'll post a report on how "annoyed" I feel on my return
-
-
[edit] laws in other countries
Do any other countries have laws regarding and/or bans on chewing gum? Since all i can find is about Singapore and I know that other countries must have some laws about it!!!-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.10 (talk • contribs)
- According to this Asian Wall Street Journal article in 2004, [1], a senior director at Wrigley said: "Singapore is the only place in the world with a ban, and with these kind of restrictions." If you know of any similar ban in other countries, please post the information here. --Vsion 01:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Non-encyclopedic tone in "Revision of the Act" section
In my opinion, the following text needs significant cleanup to present a more balanced and less emotional perspective: "Beside its authoritative rules, the long-running Singapore government was also known for its creativity in formulating "creative" schemes to tackle social problems, including the Corrective Work Order, Certificate of Entitlement and Nominated Member of Parliament. This time, they managed to pull out another trick. First, they recognised the proven health benefits of certain gums, such as Wrigley's Orbit brand of sugar-free gum that contains calcium lactate to strengthen tooth enamel. Second, the sales of this newly categorised medicinal gum was allowed, provided it was sold by a dentist or pharmacist, who must take down the names of buyers. Healthcare professionals were not amused by this new responsibility." Milnivlek (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
