Talk:Singapore/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Peer review You are currently browsing the archive of Singapore's talkpage. For discussion regarding Singapore-related articles and issues, please visit the talkpage of the SGpedians' notice board.

KEY WIKIPEDIA POLICIES -from Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines

  1. Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing differing views on a subject fairly and sympathetically.
  2. Don't infringe copyrights. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Submitting work which infringes copyrights threatens our objective to build a truly free encyclopedia that anyone can redistribute, and could lead to legal problems. See Wikipedia copyrights for more information.
  3. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further. See What Wikipedia is not for more info.
  4. Respect other contributors. Wikipedia contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia. For some guidelines, see Wikipedia etiquette, Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement, Wikipedia:Civility, Dispute resolution.


Contents

Adherence to article template

Hi, I think contributors to this article face a lot of frustration while editing unduly long edits put forward by other members. I would like to suggest that we follow the current suggested template put forward at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries. This would provide a very clear guideline on the content to add in the main article, and redirect the interested reader to the relevant article which has detailed content.

As stated in Wikipedia:Summary_style, "the idea is to distribute information in such a way so that Wikipedia can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail; it is up to the reader to choose how much detail they are exposed to."

I hope to put this as a vote so as to get things going. Please add Support or Disagree below this - please add your comments and remember to sign off! :) Hope this will help the article!

--Travisyoung 09:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

History of Singapore

For those who havn't noticed, a substantial copyright violation was discovered in the History of Singapore article, it was listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. It therefore would face deletion unless the copyrighted text can be removed. An attempt to rewrite the article with this in mind is at History of Singapore/Temp. Help is encouraged. -- Infrogmation 16:09, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I rewrote much of the history section, however some of the links were hastily typed and may be red when they shouldn't be, and also needs further refinement, help is appreciated. Also, I did not look at History of Singapore/Temp till it was too late - eek! -- Natalinasmpf, 21:14, 20 Sep 2004 (SGT)

The so called Main article: History of Singapore is much shorter than the section in this article. I would considerably shorten the history section here as it is much too overwhelming, and adding it to History of Singapore. -- Solitude 09:22, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I recognise this problem myself, but I do not want to shorten the section, just transfer the bulk of the information over to the main article. However, the main article demands a format different from the section, so its a different task which I need help with. -- Natalinasmpf, 14:04, 24 Sep 2004 (SGT)

Oh dear. The Main history section is too lengthy again. Do we really need a full length folktale in there? -- Natalinasmpf 19:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Natalinasmpf that the "History" article is too long. I think there is a need to emphasize that the "Singapore" article serves as a summary/portal and the bulk of content should be in History of Singapore. --Travisyoung 08:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding a note that Singapore was expelled, but because they intende to cede anyway. The impetus for departure was Singapore's; the Malaysian government only expelled them so that it looked as though they were in control of the situation. Sepenidur

Are you sure? Maybe I'm fed too much propaganda, but I have always been told Lee never wanted out. That we (as Singaporeans) were abandoned, etc. But maybe I'm just naive, you know? Can someone confirm this? That we wanted out, not they? Natalinasmpf 23:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Politics

Maybe I'm just nitpicking on the neutral point of view thing, but the statement "Only the truly politically passionate (some say foolhardy) join the opposition parties" seems a bit more like an opinion than real truth, especially since it seems like a generalising statement - hence inaccuracy.

"but the PAP has consistently rejected the notion of socialism, preferring a pragmatic approach toward governance and policy-making that involves public opinion and feedback."

I also think this statement could use some work, because I don't really see how being pragmatic and being involved with public opinion and feedback is equivalent to the rejection of socialism. -- Natalinasmpf

I totally agree. Sounds like the contributor has an ax to grind, which never makes for NPOV. Mandel
Okay, I have tried to soften the statement somewhat, but its still a generalising statement...but I tried to make it have a more NPOV - looking for someone to correct it once and for all. Natalinasmpf, 11:26, 30 Sep 2004 (SGT)

"although a few instances of successful opposition suits have been recorded" - where's the evidence?

Laws

I do not know, but one look at the Singapore page, and I was mildly amused by the large amount of text dedicated just on law alone. While the history section does sound factual and nuetral enough, I am not so sure about the choice of some of those laws, the scant treatment given to some, and collectively of which seems highlighted in order to elicite some kind of message with regards to social liberties and human rights, albeit probably from the Western lence.

Take for instance:

  • Laws listed pertaining to spitting, littering, and consumption on transit trains is merely said to involve "heavy fines." Would not an indication of the amount in $$$ be far more nuetral, and open for individual interpretation, since a S$500 fine for consumption on trains, for example, can actually be seen as a small amount, especially when compared to a far harsher fine of S$1000 for smoking? Are average incomes of Singaporeans taken into account before passing such a judgement?
  • I question the choice of some laws listed. Even the laws with regards to consumption on public vehicles is not exactly unique to Singapore. But in particular, I wonder why electronic road pricing and the Certificate of Entitlement were listed under "laws," when they are actually nothing more than taxation mechanisms. Both were part of a wide array of traffic control measures to promote the use of public transportation, and these are even being emulated and implimented by other cities, such as London introducing the road pricing system based on the system in Singapore. Is the contributor more concerned about listing "draconian" measures restricting personal choice on individuals, that every evidence of restriction even of the non-judicial kind are also included?
  • It will be great if the "approximately 30 offenses" liable for mandatory caning can be listed, because quite a number of those offences mentioned are actually NOT liable for the punishment in discussion here. Rape, for instance is only liable for mandatory caning should the victim be below the age of 14. Contrary to popular believe, not all forms of illegal entry involved the cane either, as it can be replaced by a fine instead. Not all forms of vandalism involves a cane sentence too, even if the accused is a male. Threats of violence do not involve mandatory caning, unless they involve a clear attempt to commit murder.

Offences which do involve mandatory canning in any circumstance are robbery (including failed attempts), theft involving intentions to cause hurt or death, most forms of offences related to illegal trafficking, use and possession of firearms and explosives, pirating (a ship), rioting, extortion, wrongful restrain with ransom, repeat offenders of delibrate livlihood on prostitution by another person, and obstruction of railways causing high likelihood of hurt or death. I may have missed one or two more offences, but the offence related to firearms, for example, already includes a large number of scnarios including trafficing and such, and I believe it is this which inflates the number of "crimes" in question here.

And I must point out it is also possible for ALL cases of caning sentences, that a fine or jail term may be imposed in lieu, should the accused by deemed unable to go through the punishment, especially due to medical reasons and such.

The rest of the text is relatively palatable to me, although I do wonder if "Certain political material is not allowed." can be expanded further. Also, should a law such as "Material which may disturb religious and racial harmony is not allowed." be stated alongside with the rest of the laws pertaining to censorship?

Finally, it is dissapointing that the case on Annis Abdullah fails to mention on how he was eventually sentenced based on the fact that the girl was underaged. He got off with a relatively light sentence, in fact. --Huaiwei 21:25, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead and expand the section if there's anything you find inadequate. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 20:03, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • I shifted the whole section into a seperate article and summaried it in the main article. I had also copy-edited it (half way though, copy-editing in the middle of the night doesn't sound like a good idea, will continue in the morning). --Andylkl 20:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1959 status and 1963 handover

Ive edited it to read crown colony instead of nation, which I believe is the correct legal characterisation. The correct legal term though may be State. This is based on secondary sources such as memoirs and books.

Could someone with access to the original legal constitutional documents, check ?

Also, was Singapore handed over by London to Kuala Lumpur in the same way that London handed over Hong Kong to Beijing ? What do the original documents say ?

Handover??? That is the first time I ever heard that term used to describe Singapore's history in 1963!--Huaiwei 17:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

You can also use template:singapore infobox.--Jerryseinfeld 23:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jerryseinfeld, there is a current WikiProject at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries. The purpose of infoboxes is to provide a common look and feel to all Wikipedia articles, although articles are not compelled to use it. --Travisyoung 08:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Education

Hi,

What should the "Education" section include? Does it cover the education system in Singapore, or does it encompass education in the holistic sense? If it was the former, I feel there shouldn't be content on the library system here. The National Library Board is a statutory board under the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts [1], not Ministry of Education. If we are just talking about the education system, then a discussion on the primary, secondary and tertiary levels of education would suffice.

If I am putting myself in the shoes of an overseas reader, I would not be interested in the library system here (IMHO). I feel that the main Singapore article should be short and concise, and if the reader is interested in a certain topic, then he/she can just click on the main article for that topic for an in-depth discussion.

-- Travisyoung 03:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tourism

Hi,

As Wikitravel is now available, the "Tourism" section seems incongruous. In an encyclopedic sense, it would be more appropriate to mention tourism as an important sector of the Singaporean economy, instead of listing tourist attractions. What do you guys think?

-- Travisyoung 03:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Travis. WikiTravel is a separate project to Wikipedia, and is not licenced under the GNU Free Documentation Licence. Content from there cannot be brought over here, and vice versa (as far as I know). As a result, we tend to ignore WikiTravel's presence and include all relevant information in our articles, regardless of whether it is a repeat of what is in WikiTravel. - Mark 04:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi Mark. Thanks for your prompt reply, it was very helpful. I did a quick check on the WikiTravel website and they are using a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 license. Essentially, users are:
  • free to copy, distribute, display and perform the work,
  • make derivative works, and
  • make commercial use of the work
as long as they give the original author credit and distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one if they alter, transform, or build upon that work.
If the article on Wikipedia only mentions tourism as an important sector of the Singaporean economy, and provides an external link for the interested reader, I don't think it contravenes the license. What do you think?
-- Travisyoung 04:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The whole point of Wikipedia is that it puts information in one place. It's not a web directory, it's an encyclopedia. I think the tourism section should be kept. You are correct that your suggestion would not be a copyright violation, though. Tuf-Kat 04:39, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Minor Stylistic Issue

I've noticed that the infobox section on government system and leaders is not aligned properly. This causes the "President" and "Prime Minister" Link to appear to have "shifted" upwards. I don't know about you guys, but to my eyes that doesn't look too appealing. Does anyone have a solution to fix this? The only one I can think of is to import it to a raw table instead of an infobox. Anyone have any other suggestions?--69.156.104.126 01:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Johnleemk for making the infobox look "purty". Man why didn't I put the <br> tag there instead of before leader_titles...--64.231.214.86 20:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

Having fell through FAC for the 2nd time, I've decided to tag this article with cleanup (I can't find any other better tags for raise attention re: this problem, sorry!). The main problem is that some sections of the articles are simply too long, especially History. They need to be rewritten and summarized. Brevity is the key. The article should be detailed, while keeing it short and sweet enough.

Once this is done, feel free to refer it to peer review again. This article really has good content to become a FA. :)

- Mailer Diablo 10:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem is that this article is not reader-friendly enough. You don't need *all* the facts to make a good article, you need the *right* facts. Right now, it's a haphazardy longish article with a lot of pockish details, but doesn't quite work. Generally, when the article started out, the length's just about right, but because people keep adding in details instead of started new articles - PS History of Singapore - it became unwieldy. I appreciate the time and effort you put in here, but I think the cleanup notice is well put. Mandel 01:37, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I've been considering merging and removing sections for quite a while now to conform with the appropriate wikiproject. Johnleemk | Talk 16:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Largest city

According to the infobox the largest city of Singapore is Singapore. Does this city of Singapore cover the entirety of the state of Singapore? — Instantnood 19:26 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)

Singapore is a city-state. The country is the state is the city. -- ran (talk) 03:07, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
So it sounds like redundant and meaningless to say it's the largest city, for it's the only city. — Instantnood 10:51 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
I prefer the clarification in my original version of the infobox — "Singapore is a city state". Johnleemk | Talk 12:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The entirety of Singapore is one city, and it's meaningless to talk about whether it is largest or not. Where can I have a look of your original version? — Instantnood 20:23 Mar 2 2005 (UTC)
The country of Singapore has one city: Singapore. The largest city is, therefore, naturally Singapore. Is there anything factually wrong with that?--Huaiwei 08:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Talking about "largest" involves comparison, and what possibly comes up in people's mind can be Singapore the city is one of the cities of Singapore the country. If it is the only city one could have said it is the smallest city as well. I guess only for countries with multiple cities the largest cities have to be mentioned, for instance, New York City to the United States. — Instantnood 09:01 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)
You are obviously trying to nit-pick this article. There is nothing factually wrong in the above statement.--Huaiwei 09:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's nothing factually wrong. But it is somehow redundant and meaningless. I am interested to have a look of Johnleemk's original version. — Instantnood 11:01 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)
Isnt there a page history section to check it out youself?--Huaiwei 13:45, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I know how to dig it out and I will. — Instantnood 14:09 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)
So do you have to ask for something you can find yourself twice?--Huaiwei 14:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Did I? I thought I've only asked him once. Thanks for telling (if that's the truth). — Instantnood 14:31 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)
1. "Where can I have a look of your original version?". 2. "I am interested to have a look of Johnleemk's original version.". If you are interested, go ahead and look for it. No need to ask for it, and then mention it again later when he isnt replying. I am still wondering why you are asking for information in such a roundabout manner as thou you are hoping that people notice your actions here?--Huaiwei 15:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The second quote wasn't a question, and even if it were I was not asking for it with Johnleemk. Johnleemk mentioned her/his version in the first place. It would be nice if he puts up a link here, and that's why I asked for it by the first quote. — Instantnood 17:03 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)
Here is the original version that Johnleemk mentioned. (09:39 Jan 28). I preferred that too, or perhaps having that cell spanning over the rows of largest city and capital. — Instantnood 20:55 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)
Capital Singapore is a city-state
Largest city
— Instantnood 11:18 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)
To be honest, this format just looks plain ugly. What is the issue of having Singapore appearing twice for different fields?--Huaiwei 14:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Listing it twice is in fact more confusing. It makes people to think about the case of Kuwait or Djibouti, where the capital is the largest city of the country, but is not the entirety of the country. — Instantnood 16:12 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)
Seems like it only confuses people like you thou. A simple click on "Largest Cities" brings you to the Demographics of Singapore page, which will be a far better avenue to explain everything in-depth. There is no need to clutter the info-box.--Huaiwei 19:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The infobox does not mean to be only vertical (on Singapore in depth), but also horizontal, that is to facilitate cross-country/territory comparison. — Instantnood 21:48 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)
Comparisons between other independent countries, you say? Ask a Malaysian: What is your capital city? Kuala Lumpur. What is your biggest city? Kuala Lumpur. Ask a Singaporean: What is your capital city? Singapore. What is your biggest city? Singapore. I dont think horizontal comparisons is impossible?--Huaiwei 19:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For the infoboxes of most countries/territories "capital" refers to the place where the government headquartered, and "largest city" refers to the city with the largest population in that country/territory. Like what I have mentioned, the current way of presentation lacks the clarity that Singapore city is the entirety of the country, and the entire city/country serves as the capital. Take a look at the infoboxes of Djibouti and Kuwait. — Instantnood 00:25 Mar 9 2005 (UTC)
And Luxembourg's as well. — Instantnood 20:28, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
So some of them have the field "largest city". Others dont. What do you wish to see in this page?--Huaiwei 08:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In all of these countries, unlike Singapore, each of the capitals is not the entirety of the country. To allow cross-country comparison the note that Singapore is a city-state should be kept. — Instantnood 12:36, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
How should that note make things less confusing? The main text itself, and in many other relevant texts, already makes it clear that the country is a city-state. How should its omission make the fact that the capital is the city is the country any less clear?--Huaiwei 12:41, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The answer to "how?" was already mentioned in my comment above at 16:12 Mar 5 2005. In what way does keeping the four words in the infobox spoils this article on your home city-state? — Instantnood 15:00, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Simple. It does not appear to serve its purpose, it addresses an issue which is a non-issue, and it makes the infobox more cluttered then it should.--Huaiwei 15:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Good. It is a non-issue if Huaiwei regards it is a non-issue. — Instantnood 16:01, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
And it is an issue when Instantnood regards it as one? Well...lets be a bit more adult here. If you find it confusing, at least demonstrate why it should be so for the MAJORITY of users in this site.--Huaiwei 16:13, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am not the only one. See Johnleemk's attempt. — Instantnood 16:27, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
And note that he didnt see a need to raise the issue until you came along?--Huaiwei 16:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Cool. Now I know you can read other people's mind. — Instantnood 11:35, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Ahem. Can we please cut out the personal attacks here? I don't really give a flying ass about this whole issue, but I do think Instantnood is making a mountain out of a molehill. Furthermore, the latest comment seems to be quite inaccurate; it's a demonstrable fact I haven't bothered complaining about this non-issue. Johnleemk | Talk 12:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It was interesting he could have equated "he didn't raise the issue.." with "he didnt see a need to raise the issue..". — Instantnood 15:38, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Alright, everyone drop it please. I hope this won't scuttle the current FAC nomination, which I'm now putting it up for the third time. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alternative

What about this layout. Your comments are welcome. — Instantnood 16:01, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

For some reason, I think Johnleemk's version seem to look better. - Mailer Diablo 02:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well me too. But then for some reasons somebody objected.
Actually it would be nice if his version is applied to both the box of largest city and capital. — Instantnood 14:52, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Capital

Does Singapore state Singapore as the capital in its law? — Instantnood 20:23 Mar 2 2005 (UTC)

The Constitution doesn't say anything about the capital of Singapore, just that "Singapore shall be a sovereign republic to be known as the Republic of Singapore." And there aren't any formal administrative subdivisions either.
In fact, a quick search on Google reveals that various government ministries, agencies, etc. are spread all over the city-state. -- ran (talk) 02:29, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
As I said before, not every independent state deems it neccesary to define their capital cities in their constitution. Singapore is a country as well as a city. The capital of Singapore as a country is the city of Singapore, so there isnt much of an issue if there are internal subdivisions (although there are), or whether the administrative functions are located all over the city or not.
Anyway, is Instantnood now finding it his business to question on Singapore issues when he is facing "trouble" back home?--Huaiwei 08:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A quick search on its acts and statutes seems to reveal where it is its capital is not mentioned. I am not sure if there is any definition for "city", and Singapore the city as the entirety of the country. — Instantnood 09:07 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)

And so you are saying Singapore has no capital city?--Huaiwei 09:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not at the moment. I am interested to know about how it is made the capital, or it is just de facto. — Instantnood 11:03 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)

Not at the moment? So that is your eventual intention, am I right?--Huaiwei 13:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. It depends. — Instantnood 13:45 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)

No you explain. If you initiate this section in questioning the capital of Singapore, then surely you are disputing Singapore's capital? So if Singapore is not the capital of Singapore, may I know which is? Raffles City?--Huaiwei 13:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Some maps will state the Central Business District as the capital area of Singapore, but I think that's grossly inaccurate. The island itself can be safely considered as the capital city. IIRC, no official SG government agency has stated any specific location in Singapore to be the capital area. Singapore is just too small to define a capital I guess. - Mailer Diablo 13:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeap...I have mentioned this before at length in the Hong Kong discussion page. Some of these publications has a tendency of placing that star over the traditional core of the city area to indicate it as the capital city, which is not factually accurate at all. They cant really make an exception however, because they cant have a huge black star covering over the entire country map! :D--Huaiwei 14:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I haven't questioned about it. As I have stated above, I am interested to know whether it is stated in law, or just de facto. And so far I still cannot find any definition of "city" by the government, or the entirety of the country is in the same city. — Instantnood 14:09 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)
        • When I tried comparing the "city" and the capital city issue in Hong Kong with that in Singapore, Instantnood was the one telling me to stop using Singapore for comparison. I suppose he is finally realising there is some parallels here, except that Singapore is an independent country, while Hong Kong is not. You will not find the Singapore government explicitely defining Singapore as one city in legal documents, or the location of its capital city, simply because Singapore is a city state. Other countries see a need to define boundaries and define the capital city, because they have multiple urban areas which needs to be demarcated into seperate cities for any reason they deem fit, and they have to select one capital city out of many. Is there a need for Singapore to do that? No. So should the failure of the Singapore government in defining the above mean Singapore has no capital city, or Singapore is not the capital city of Singapore either, and hence it is a case of de facto? That sounds like trivalising the definition of a capital city here?--Huaiwei 14:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • If that's trivialising the definition of capital then how should capital be defined?
          • The capital article says its " the focal point of power for the region or country ", " the city which physically encompasses the offices and meeting places of the seat of government and fixed by law ", and " the principal city or town associated with its government ". — Instantnood 20:47 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)
          • What do you think about this definition from capital? — Instantnood 10:38 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)
        • Neither. I have no idea why it is there in the first place. The entire state of Singapore can be considered as the city, as Johnmklee and Ran has mentioned. See above. - Mailer Diablo 14:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • At the discussion at Talk:Hong Kong SchmuckyTheCat gave me a lesson that a capital is one of the divisions of a country that picked up the role to be the seat of the government. I don't quite agree with it though. If her/his rule applies, then city states such as Singapore and Vatican City will practically have no capital. — Instantnood 14:31 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)
            • to quote: " yes, many subnational entities have capitols or seats, but that is when it is politically necessary because of political divisions within the entity. For a unitary government it is superfluous. ". — Instantnood 14:38 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)
              • I do not know if this is a case of linguistic handicap or not, because the above seems to a an example of this. From what I understand of his paragraph, he argues that subnational entities may have capitals when it is politically neccesary because the subnational boundary exists. He was NOT talking about national capitals, which the capitals of city-states are!--Huaiwei 15:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Okay, that's your way of playing with words. What make a capital of a subnational entity different from that of a country, that one has to be justified by divisions within the entity, but not the other? — Instantnood 17:08 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)
            • Can you tell? — Instantnood 10:38 Mar 6 2005 (UTC)
      • I think we should concentrate more on the larger problems in the article, such as the length of the article that needs rewriting/cleanup. I still want to send it back to FAC, you know! ;) - Mailer Diablo 14:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, his above behavior seems like another point which should be raised here. I will get to it soon, since he is not giving me much choices.--Huaiwei 14:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Agree. But I'm afriad I am not as familiar with Singapore as many other contributors do. :-D — Instantnood 14:31 Mar 3 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey guys, how about this. For now we'll take that entire state of Singapore as the capital city as correct, unless Instantnood can prove otherwise. He'll provide the evidence that shows that the claims are legitimate. After all, Wikipedians at FAC are always saying that there are not enough referrences to validate the article's claims. Fair enough? ;) - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed. The ball is in his court now.--Huaiwei 14:33, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm, if the idea of a capital is a division where the administrative body lies, it could be the CBD area since the government already has explicitly outlined that area (notably by having an ERP surcharge) and mostly all government administration buildings (Istana, Parliament, Supreme Court, Treasury, Etc.) excluding that of the Ministry of Education is located within this area. Its not a constitutional capital, but if you're talking about de-facto, since Singapore also divides itself into many towns, (Yishun, Dover, Pasir Ris, Jurong, etc - which also happen to be de facto really because of the HDB population distribution) the CBD area would be it. -- Natalinasmpf 22:45, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But then Huaiwei said the entirety of the country is one city, and this city is the capital, while there is no definition for "city", and it is not stated in law where the capital is. — Instantnood 15:36 Mar 4 2005 (UTC)

  • A capital doesn't necessarily have to be a city, does it? I mean, semantically, capital means "head division" - a capital of a city could well be an area where its the most important administration buildings are located. -- Natalinasmpf 19:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • In fact I do agree with this definition. — Instantnood 21:49 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)
  • And so? You just want to say that Singapore has no capital city because its law books did not say so, and then use this to argue your case on Victoria City in Hong Kong? It dosent take a genious to know what you are up to...you seem to be harbouring some kind of spite against this place just because of what happened in the discussions over there?--Huaiwei 19:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • This isn't directed at me, right? Have I done anything? -- Natalinasmpf 21:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Not you of coz. Notice my dots arent indented below yours like this one! :D --Huaiwei 21:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • (response to Huaiwei) Please focus on my arguments. My intention is unimportant and irrelevant in this discussion. — Instantnood 21:51 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)
      • Your intentions are not as irrelevant as you make it out to be. And btw, you appear to be prodding the discussion towards a certain direction?--Huaiwei 22:23, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think there is any direction. What is the direction in your eyes? — Instantnood 10:38 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe you should go on a Singapore chatroom and ask them where is the capital of Singapore. I can assure you everybody will tell you Singapore is a city-state. Mandel 22:17, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Yes I agree. But Huaiwei did not agree with proofs from chatroom. — Instantnood 12:32, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
lol....thats bec I dont have to go to a chat room to realise Singapore is one!--Huaiwei 14:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Taxes, garbage policy, etc.

Where would these fit? The article has nothing on taxes, or how it deals with the pesky problem of garbage (no landfills, mainly incinerators one is near a residential area, etc.) and the environment, and other things like healthcare?

Can I put it under geography for environmental (and how Singapore's population deals with it, ie. garbage) issues? Where do I put administrative issues under? Demographics? Politics? -- Natalinasmpf 21:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Garbage and the environment can go under geography for now. Healthcare might make sense under demographics or economy, depending on how you spin it. Administrative issues generally go under politics, I think. Whatever you do, please don't unreasonably balloon the article — last time it was full of mostly irrelevant issues for someone wanting to get a good idea of Singapore's big picture. Johnleemk | Talk 04:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Aye, I concur. Taxes can go under the economic section, although I strongly recommend that you expand the content on its subpages instead due to the huge size of the article itself. :) - Mailer Diablo 06:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I plan to make a small mention on the main page, and elaborate on the sub-pages, is that okay? Also, what I meant by administration was the things like Singapore's GRC's and towns. It has no reference to this fact that Singapore may be one great city, but it is divided into towns, (such as reference to a list such as one here) which is quite an important fact. Where would this fall under?-- Natalinasmpf 19:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

GRC stands for Group Representation Constituencies, and should not be considered as a reliable way of town division because it is more of, rather, a political division (of voting district). Multiple towns are merged to form GRCs, and changes often at times from election to election. Therefore GRC is under the political section. For towns, perhaps either Geography or Demographics (correct me if I'm wrong! ;) ) - Mailer Diablo 16:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is indeed a page for these "subdivisions" in Districts and places in Singapore. If you want to have discriptions for each GRC, you might want to consider going to the respective pages of each place name, add a subcategory such as "Ang Mo Kio Group Representation Constituency", and add the info from there. You can see an example under Ang Mo Kio, whereby the general area, the New Town, and the GRC are all mentioned in one page. I dont think they deserve seperate pages just yet unless we have the pages spilling all over with information. --Huaiwei 01:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I approve of the decision to move the transportation and telecommunications, education, etc. pages to its main pages and reduce its presence on the Singapore article, but to reduce it to a fleeting mention at the end of the article is a bit too extreme. It should be linked/integrated (metaphorically speaking) to the Singapore article, ie. mention how the transport system corresponds to the economy, notability etc. because its quite a major feature of Singapore. I propose at least mentioning a sentence or two about transport and education in the economic and demographic sections - ie. education needs to be tied in with the demographics, ie. "a considerable standard in education has helped boost the literacy rate of Singaporeans to 94% in comparison to its South-East Asian neighbours"...should I do that? -- Natalinasmpf 19:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As long as they don't overflow into their own sections and don't take up too much space, I think it's alright. Johnleemk | Talk 12:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy Disputed?

This notice is kind of disturbing. I don't think the factual accuracy is disputed as in more of in need of better organisation, no? -- Natalinasmpf 18:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An anon added it...for reasons I dont know of! :D But I did notice him/her making some small edits to the page, so maybe he/she feels more needs to be done to proofread the entire article?--Huaiwei 19:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think it should be removed. How the hell will we know what's wrong with the article if it hasn't been discussed? There's a reason the template asks you to look on the talk page. Johnleemk | Talk 12:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the Anon is referring to the "largest city and capital" debate. So, I guess you people will have to settle this issue fast. - Mailer Diablo 22:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Groyn88

Trying to deal with him constantly adding a non-NPOV segment. I try to remove it, but he keeps on adding it and not discussing this with me. Can someone assist this situation? -- Natalinasmpf 19:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You could try by messaging him on his user talk page, and encourage him to instead provide an NPOV summary of the situation in Singapore with respect to gay people - it's a relevant topic, in the city-state which bans homosexual sex but watches Queer Eye for the Straight Guy in hoardes. - Mark 00:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gay issues

"homosexuals are generally ostracised by Singaporean society, both on a political level by prosecuting and convicting them"

This statement is ambiguous. Does it mean that if you are gay and openly admits it, you'll be convicted? Does it refer to both men and women? If this is not exactly what it means, this statement ought to be finetuned so that it states what exactly homosexuals are facing in Singapore. Mandel 11:43, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I see your concern now. Homosexuality itself is not illegal; "unnatural" sexual activities between two men is (ironically, it does not refer to women).--Huaiwei 07:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What? So homosexuality without unnatural sexual activities is legal? How do people who do not have sex have any sexuality let alone homosexuality? They are called virgins. So are all the homosexuals in Singapore virgins? How is that possible?

Please sign your post. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation; it does not denote whether a person need to be a dormant or active homosexual. Ditto with heterosexuality; being a heterosexual does not mean you must actively engage in sex. Check the dictionary. Mandel 14:56, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Mandel. ;)
The following lists various acts related to homosexuality in Singapore, along with my interpretation. Feel free to add more :
  • Cap 224 section 377: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine. Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section. Interpretation: "Unatural sexual intercourse", usually refering to sodomy and oral sex, is unlawful, but it does not mean homosexuality itself is unlawful.
  • Cap 224 section 377A. Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years. Interpretation: It is against the law for two men to engage in acts of gross indecency (which could include anything from anal intercourse to even non contact acts, in theory), whether public of private, but it says nothing on acts commited between women.
  • Cap 353 section 12: A marriage solemnized in Singapore or elsewhere between persons who, at the date of the marriage, are not respectively male and female shall be void. Interpretation: Same-sex marriage is against the law, unless a sex change has been done before the marriage, as detailed in the next section.
Clearly, the above should be the primary basis for discussions on the legal implications of homosexuality here, and not those based on heresay or inaccurate media reports. Claims that "homosexuality is illegal" in Singapore is clearly unsubstaintiated.--Huaiwei 18:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic unrest in Singapore

Perhaps the statement on ethnic harmony should be revised slightly. There are minor ethnic tensions, so I'm not sure that "no signs of ethnic unrest" is appropriate in the demographics section. ("no signs of ethnic unrest since the early 1970s. Issues exist such as bans on fundamentalist evangelical Christian activities and the Islamic headscarf in public schools.") Another example is a slightly increasing anti-Caucasian sentiment (as evidenced by the presence of hate groups such as http://www.quality-nation.com/ and experiences in online expat boards.) Although obviously not discussed in the government-influenced press, there may be more ethnic problems within Singapore than apparent on the surface. How about changing the statement in that section to "very few signs of ethnic tension"? Xaqua 02:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead. Its more NPOV too. Although I wouldn't call it "minor ethnic tensions", I really wouldn't call it tension, more like concerns. Ie. the HDB policies of having each race only sell to their own race and its side effect on racial harmony is more like a bad bureaucratic policy but with good intentions. I mean, there really is no significant case of ill will. The headscarf ban is mainly for racial harmony, not against (but of course this can go awry), and the suppression of fundamentalist activities is mainly politically-driven, not ethnically, because, as you know, the government really can't stand any opinions against national service. -- Natalinasmpf 02:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The question is not what the intentions of the policies are but what the effects are. Whatever the policies were intended to do, what matters is what effect have they had on ethnic tensions? I don't know so I won't comment. I will say it's a rather well known fact that a fair number of Singaporean Malays feel they are discriminated against, even if not overtly. Whether this is true, or simply because they are comparing themselves to Malaysian Malays were they are discriminated for, I don't know and won't try to comment but I think pretending that there are no ethnic tensions is just plain silly. Every single country has ethnic tensions of some sort. 60.234.141.76 20:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I changed the headscarf sentence today because I was tightening the article a bit; please revise if the edits somehow disturbed the NPOV balance that was struck earlier. jp2 00:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Natalina, please don't change it to "there has been few signs". "Signs" is plural, therefore you need to say "there HAVE been few signs" (of ethnic tension) for subject-verb agreement. An example that will help you see this more clearly with the usage of there is/there are is as follows:

There is few men who would do it. INCORRECT (men is plural but "is" is singular)

There are few men who would do it. CORRECT (plural noun requires plural verb)

A good source of grammar information on the usage of the word "few" with plural nouns is http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/grammar/archive/little_few01.html Xaqua 07:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Oops, sorry, I was groggy (stayed up all night before), something clicked wrongly. I was reading subconsciously the resulting phrase after as a singular entity, for some reason, probably because I was too sleepy. -- Natalinasmpf 15:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

Well I replaced the table with an infobox link to get rid of the size issue; revert if you don't like it. This infobox is based on Instanood's version done in the sandbox. I think the largest city/capital looks better if there is a footnote, following Vatican City's lead. --Bash 21:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Renominating this for FAC

So do you think this can be eligible for FAC again? A lot of improvements have been made this time. We've certainly come a long way in editing Singaporean related articles that we can link to and exchange information with (ie mentions of each other's info), and so we just have to achieve a fair degree of cohesion then I think we're all up for FAC, all we have to do is integrate the various sections and articles a bit further.

Although I'm surprised this article doesn't mention Singaporean food that much. Isn't it a tourist attraction / cultural phenomenon? ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 16:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

If you want an honest comment, I felt its quality has gone slightly downhill rather than uphill since the most recent nomination...--Huaiwei 17:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Whats the reason for your opinion? -- Natalinasmpf 19:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I will try to give you a full reply next week or the folloing week. Sorry for the delay.--Huaiwei 14:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Images missing

I have seen the images for almost every article has bee removed. All the images for the SIngapore article is missing, to whoever who has done it, please upload all images on all aritcles again Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terenceong1992 (talk • contribs)

Isn't this due to a power failure? Isn't it temporary? -- Natalinasmpf 16:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Hinterland

I removed the hinterland but it was reinserted and have no desire to get into a edit war so I'll leave it but hopefully someone else will make the effort necessary to get it removed. There is no denying that Malaysia and Singapore are important to each other and that Malaysia supplies a significant amounts of the raw materials to Singapore. However, as the hinterland article makes clear, calling something a hinterland has the implication that the place you are referring to is an undeveloped rural area which only currently serves to supply someplace else with the raw material necessary for it to function. Calling Malaysia a hinterland is highly offensive therefore. Adding the words partial doesn't help much. This is not a Malaysia-Singapore war but simply pointing out why using a word with negative connations when clearly it only very partially applies is inappropriate. It would be much fairer and more accurate to describe the nature of the relationship between Malaysia and Singapore rather then use a word which inappropriately suggests Malaysia is a hinterland (which it is not)

Maybe, rephasing it to "economic hinterland" is more acceptable? To me, "hinterland" does not have negative connotation at all (can you give example of when the word is used in an offensive manner). In fact, it signifies a sense of the city's reliance and dependence on the greater region. For example, "Shanghai depends on her hinterland in Zhejiang and central China", or "Mainland China is Hong Kong's economic hinterland". In these examples, it highlights the importance of Zhejiang and Mainland China to the cities and does not seem inappropriate. It also does not imply that Zhejiang and Mainland China have no other major cities themselves -- Vsion 21:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
In fact, you can find the word used in Johor Bahru article, in the same context, presumably written by someone who lives in Johor Bahru. Vsion 21:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
The Johor Bahru article and the quote about Shanghai seem NPOV because there is a suggestion that one region of a country is the hinterland of an urban area; saying that all of Malaysia (or all of Mainland China, in the Hong Kong quote) is a hinterland seems an unnecessarily broad characterization. Repeating the hinterland characterization in the infobox seems especially non-NPOV. jp2 00:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I will change it to economic hinterland to reduce confusion. -- Natalinasmpf 21:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the word "hinterland" suggesting "economic undevelopment" may be overdrawn. It is entirely possible to call an economicaly more development region a hinterland of a said locality, or the other way round. The core idea in the word's usage is the level of dependency, and not on relative development for either entity. It is also rather weak argument to insist that broad geographic regions being called a hinterland is a POV issue. It is not uncommon to hear major global cities saying the entire World is their hinterland, and Singapore was participatory in this line of thought as well. In recent years, there has been much talk on "expanding Singapore's hinterland" to encompass a 7 hour flight region around the city, as envisaged by SM Goh Chok Tong several years ago. How is this suggestive that the entire region are economically undeveloped?--Huaiwei 12:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Communism?

Is communism (having communist sentiment, or believing in communist beliefs) legal or illegal in Singapore? I've heard that it's not and that the ruling party often accuses opponents of being communists before having them jailed. This is however from someone why may be biased against the country, so does anyone care to elaborate / refute / add to the article?

communism is not illegal in Singapore. Communist political parties still exist even today. I dont know of anyone being labelled a communist and then jailed, but this is probably only possible during the state of emergency in Singapore when faced with the communist threat decades ago with the invocation of the ISA. Today, they can very well use the ISA to charge anyone, but I have yet to see it happen in a big way. Are there any sources to support this? And meanwhile, please sign your messages. Thank you.--Huaiwei 12:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Communism is not illegal in Singapore, just the Malayan Communist Party and those that plan terrorist activities. Of course, the freedom to publicise such beliefs is a different matter.... -- Natalinasmpf 02:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


Merlion; National Emblem?

The merlion was never the national emblem of singapore. It was a tourism icon first suggested by the Shaw Brothers upon the encouragement of then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. The National Emblem of Singapore is the Tentara Singapura, A crest of the Singapore flag flanked by a tiger and a lion.

Before you make that change here you need to make the change (and, if necessary get a consensus) at Merlion. We can't have two articles out of sync on what the item represents. - Tεxτurε 19:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Why is this discussed here instead of at the Merlion page? I dont know of a "crest of the sg flag", but if you are talking about the crest with the stars and crescent moon etc, that is the Coat of arms or the state crest of Singapore. A national emblem, I must add, can be anything as broad as a flag to a national flower to a symbol, and most countries have an entire collection of them, including Singapore. Both the coat of arms and the Merlion happen to be national emblems of Singapore. I am proceeding to correct the Merlion page.--Huaiwei 17:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

organisational outlook

Okay, the Politics section is kind of haphazardly written with sporadic examples everywhere and a jittery flow. Can someone fix this, ie. generalise the examples and move them to the main Politics of Singapore article? I would do this, but I thought someone might like to embark on this task while I'm busy trying to write urban planning articles, which I also would like to bring up, because urban planning and outlay of the towns in Singapore is an important detail which needs to be mentioned and tied in (and well interlinked by concept) to the article and other articles. Thanks! -- Natalinasmpf 00:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy

The text:

"In 2005 a local Singaporean, Martyn See, shot a documentary on Chee called the "Singapore Rebel" and was threatened with a lawsuit for making a "politically partisan" film, which is supposedly illegal in Singapore."

is both:

  1. either POV or weasel words (I refer to the "supposedly")
  2. a factual inaccuracy.

It is illegal to make a political film in Singapore, and the Singaporean government has the relevant law online.

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/ (Singapore statutes online, a Singaporean government website.)

[quote] "Making, distribution and exhibition of party political films 33. Any person who —

(a) imports any party political film;

(b) makes or reproduces any party political film;

(c) distributes, or has in his possession for the purposes of distributing, to any other person any party political film; or

(d) exhibits, or has in his possession for the purposes of exhibiting, to any other person any party political film,

knowing or having reasonable cause to believe the film to be a party political film shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years." [/quote]

[quote] ""party political film" means a film —

(a) which is an advertisement made by or on behalf of any political party in Singapore or any body whose objects relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore, or any branch of such party or body; or

(b) which is made by any person and directed towards any political end in Singapore;" [/quote]

I'll just fix that I guess. GeorgeBills 06:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned "supposedly", because such a law would be kind of violating the Singapore Constitution, if I have right. Gah, we don't really have much of a judicial branch that could decide that however.... -- Natalinasmpf 08:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe "is illegal, despite the fact that this apparently violates the Singaporean constitution?" Seems less ambiguous. Sorry if I've caused any offense. GeorgeBills 12:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)