Talk:Singapore

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)

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)
      • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)

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)