Talk:Singapore/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Removal of text re presumed innocence/guilt

Chensiyuan removed the following bolded text here:

Singapore has penalties that include judicial corporal punishment in the form of caning for rape, rioting, vandalism, and some immigration offences. There is a mandatory death penalty for murder, and for certain drug-trafficking and firearms offences. Amnesty International has said that some legal provisions conflict with the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that Singapore has "possibly the highest execution rate in the world relative to its population".

The rationale given was "penalties have nothing to do with presumption of innocence"

Here is the text concering this from the introdution of the reference, Amnesty International's "Singapore: The death penalty - A hidden toll of executions":

Most of those executed were convicted of drug trafficking while others were executed for murder or firearms offences. These offences carry a mandatory death penalty, which means that trial judges have no option but to impose a death sentence on those who are convicted. A series of clauses in the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Arms Offences Act contain presumptions of guilt, conflicting with the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and eroding the right to a fair trial.

Later in the reference it states:

8.2 Presumed guilty: Erosion of the right to a fair trial

The Misuse of Drugs Act contains a series of presumptions which shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused. This conflicts with the universally guaranteed right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Amnesty International is gravely concerned that such presumptions erode the right to a fair trial, increasing the risk that an innocent person may be executed, particularly as the law provides for a mandatory death sentence. The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has also expressed concern about these clauses and has urged the government to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act in order to bring it in line with international standards.35 Similar presumptions of guilt are also contained in the Arms Offences Act.

In regards to statements by the UN Special Rapporteur, the report from Amnesty International references UN document no: E/CN.4/1997/60/Add.1 Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Bacre Waly Ndiaye, submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1996/74, Addendum: Country situations. Here is the text from that:

438. The Special Rapporteur wishes to reiterate his call on the Government of Singapore to change its Drug Act so as to bring it into line with international standards. The Special Rapporteur considers that the Misuse of Drug Act, which partially shifts the burden of proof to the accused, does not provide sufficient guarantees for the presumption of innocence and may lead to violations of the right to life when the crime of drug trafficking carries a mandatory death sentence. He also wishes to remind the Government of paragraph 6 of the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty.

I've reverted the edit as presumption of guilt has a lot to do with the high execution rate. I also think the point made by Amnesty International could be better communicated in the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand that the presumption of guilt may not lead to a direct increase in the number of executions, but the manner in which the UN special Rapporteur has presented the situation does not seem to concur at all. The Misuse of Drugs Act for instance is clear example of how such a extra judicial issue can lead to a high number of cases of execution on the lines of the presumtion of guilt that it underscores so clearly. Also, the safeguard guanranteeing protection of the rights of all death row victims is not mentioned anywhere in the report submitted by Bacre Waly Ndiaye although it was very badly presented in the second report of Amnesty International earlier this year. Paragraph 6 of the safeguards therefore needs more emphasis in the article. Please consider this in the interest of making the presentation more NPOV. Thanks! Theodorebalthazar (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverts by Dave1185 and Chipmunkdavis

The introduction section of the article [here] states 'Singapore united with other former British territories to form Malaysia in 1963 and became a fully independent state two years later after separation from Malaysia', which is wrong, since 95% of the territories that formed Malaysia were never British territories.

The 9 major Malaysian states (Federated and Unfederated Malay States) were British protected states but they were not British territories. Basically, a British protected state is a territory under a ruler which enjoys Her Britannic Majesty's protection, over whose foreign affairs she exercises control, but in respect of whose internal affairs she does not exercise jurisdiction. They are independent in every sense of the word except the British were in charge of defence and a few other foreign affairs matter. British laws etc had no effect there (95% of Malaysia), the schools and government were not run by the British and they were Malay sovereign land. (read what are protected states [here]) The only parts of Malaysia that were British territories (British had sovereignity over the land) were the British Straits Settlements, very small pockets of land in Malaysia.

Chipmunk and later Dave1185 reverted my edit [here] to clarify that very important fact. I think those edits should not have been reverted? And without any discussion first? Feel free to discuss. Smilingfrog (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The whole empire is commonly referred to as British territory. Protectorates, colonies, even dominions, are all regarded as former British territories (territory is usually a general word rather than a specific political designation). Also, Singapore didn't join all those individual Malay states, as your edits outside the lead implied, it joined the already independent Malaya.

Please read WP:BRD. Just as edits can be made without discussion, reverts can be made without discussion (although justification in the summary is often helpful). After that, it is on the onus of the editor who made the first change to start discussion, with the WP:Burden on them to justify the change. Thank you for starting this conversation here, appreciated. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. It is quite common knowledge that most of Malaysia (95%) except for the Straits Settlements were protected states, not even protectorates. The 9 major Malaysian states (Federated and Unfederated Malay States were independent Malay nations ruled by Malay Kings and not the British. The sovereignity of these states were never in doubt, they belonged to the Malays and the Malay Kings, the British did not have sovereignity over these areas. It is clear they cannot be regarded as part of the British empire or British territories though some historians may casually include all protected states as part of the British empire as well. Assuming you know your Malayan history, the British never wanted to colonise these areas as they did not want to antagonise the natives and cause a civil war, which they would definitely lose as they were outnumbered. The British did of course tried to influence these states greatly through treaties with their Kings, and to get as much rubber/raw resources out of them as possible, but at the end of the day, there is no doubt these states are not British territories under international law at that time. And the history/introduction section should definitely show this. Cheers, Smilingfrog (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

• Just curious Mr Frog, were the Northern Borneo territories of Sabah and Sarawak ever in your scope/picture when you speak of this? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Before World War II, the Federated Malay States, the unfederated Malay states and the Straits Settlements were all collectively known as "British Malaya", a de facto part of the British Empire that was overseen by an office in Singapore which reported to the Colonial Office (there's a clue right there in the name) in London. That was the political reality. The autonomy of some of the Malay states was a convenient legal fiction, except in religious matters where the sultans were left to do what they liked. -- Alarics (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Emm...British Malaya is actually a misnomer. If you would click on British Malaya itself, the introduction already states 'Unlike the term "British India", which excludes the Indian princely states, British Malaya is often used to refer to the Malay States under indirect British rule as well as the Straits Settlements that were under the sovereignty of the British Crown.' I just wish to point out that at the end of the day the 9 major P.Malaysian states -- Federated Malay States and Unfederated Malay States (the name 'Malay states' gives you a clue as to their sovereignty) were not British land i.e. territory. Only the Straits Settlements and North Borneo were British land. Yeah you are right, some of the states were like that, but those were the Federated Malay States. The Unfederated Malay States had a lot of autonomy. Day-to-day living in the Malay states were very Malay. The Brits did not dare to control the Malay states too much and did not dare to take over sovereignty of the states (hence controlling it indirectly) as they feared a civil war and feared being overthrown... which later sort of came when the Brits formed the short-lived Malayan Union.... This being an encyclopedia WP:ENC I thought the oversight should be corrected. But whatever the general consensus is, it is then. I have said my piece. Many thanks, Smilingfrog (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a description. For all intents and purposes, British residents controlled the Malay states (even unfederated ones). Historians reflect that. Also, the Malayan Union was under British rule, as was Sarawak post WWII. So by the time of federation, all four polities were indisputably under British Rule. Indirect rule is still rule. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Facepalm... Davis, I guess my hinting didn't achieve the result we wanted, eh? Nevermind, carry on. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm...yup if you include the Malayan Union then it does make sense. I think you are right. Good point. Many thanks, Smilingfrog (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"The country is currently the only Asian country to have AAA credit ratings from all three major credit rating agencies – Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch. [60][61] " What is the third? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.249.133 (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

1) S&P 2) Moody's 3) Fitch Jpatokal (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that when the article mentions 'British Territories' it refers to British controlled territories even if these were nominally ruled by local figurehead sultans. The area was definitely British Malaya. Theodorebalthazar (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

weatherbox

please someone fix the weatherbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.25.124.107 (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It comes from Template:Singapore weatherbox. What is wrong with it? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Land area

This article needs to be updated. The area of Singapore as of 2010 is over 700 km2, according to the official website http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/keyind.html#popnarea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DORC (talk • contribs) 10:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done I fixed it to match List of countries and outlying territories by total area which has 710. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But according to the official area it should be 712.4 square km (in 2010). The area might be larger now, as Singapore is known for its land reclamation projects. DORC (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Another point - the references for the lead seem to be missing? DORC (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The lead doesn't need references, it summarises information referenced in the body. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 February 2012

Please include the latest "Ease of doing business" ranking by the World Bank. Singapore is ranked #1.

Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IC.BUS.EASE.XQ

http://business.asiaone.com/Business/News/My%2BMoney/Story/A1Story20120131-325064.html

Limweeleng (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Please phrase your request in a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail. The current weighting for that information is supporting a claim of "most business friendly". Celestra (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Minor grammatical error

"The country has the world's third highest per capita GDP (PPP) with US$59,936, making Singapore one of the world's wealthiest country.[6]"

should be changed to one of the world's wealthiest countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.35.129 (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks -- Alarics (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 February 2012

Under Transport

SBS Transit and SMRT also run the public train system.

210.24.208.77 (talk) 14:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Please provide the text you want inserted and provide a relaible source. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Update Human Development Index of Singapore

Please Update the HDI (Human Development Index) from 0.846 (27th) to 0.866 (26th). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuunox3 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, you are correct. I found the new reference and have updated the HDI. Best Smilingfrog (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Very misleading statement

"Before independence in 1965, Singapore was the capital of the British Straits Settlements, a Crown Colony."

It ceased being capital of the Straits Settlements long before 1965. Most of the Straits Settlements (Malacca and Penang) became part of the Federation of Malaya in 1957. Singapore became a self-governing state within the British Commonwealth in 1959, and became independent (briefly) from Britain in 1963 before joining the Federation of Malaysia later that year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.148.225 (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Please edit

Please add .新加坡 and .சிங்கப்பூர் to the list of Internet TLDs in the info box. Source: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/string-evaluation-completion-en.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.188.24 (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a consensus that only the latin text TLD should be included, as the other's aren't relevant to someone reading english wikipedia. CMD (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Please add link

Please link "non-religious" in 8.1 Demographics/Religion to the page "Irreligion in Singapore". "Non-religious" is the only one of the listed largest religious demographics that is not a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.36.248 (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! CMD (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Factual Error

"Twenty percent of Singaporeans, or one out of every five, are illiterate in English." the referenced evidence only shows most frequent language spoken at home - nothing to do with literacy rates in English. I can be literate in English and still prefer to speak Chinese at home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debatinglove (talk • contribs) 06:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The reference for that line was found a line below.

From http://www.singstat.gov.sg/news/news/press12012011.pdf

Point 11 -- Among literate residents aged 15 years and over, 80 per cent were literate in English in 2010, up from 71 per cent in 2000. Literacy in two or more languages also rose from 56 per cent in 2000 to 71 per cent in 2010.

Already fixed it. Best, Smilingfrog (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Housing confusion

The article currently says four out of five Singaporeans live in subsidised, high-rise, public housing apartments, but also says house ownership rate is at 87.2%. These statistics cannot both mean what they seem to mean. Colin McLarty (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Both figures are accurate, although the 2nd should state home ownership. Public housing in Singapore is generally owned by the occupant. Jpatokal (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Section on Culture

The second paragraph appears to be repetitive of demographic information contained earlier in the article + it does not lead on to some useful conclusion that I can make out. I suggest to delete the sentences from "Among Singaporean Chinese, one..." till "...lean toward Indian culture."

Could we check if there is consensus or different opinion on this? -Bnitin (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is undue repetition of the earlier subsection on languages. If we delete as you suggest, we are going to lose the assertions that Chinese native speakers tend towards Confucianism, and English native speakers towards Western culture, etc. -- but then, those assertions currently are not cited to any source, so ought to be removed in any case. -- Alarics (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Transport

Please add two following things to transport section:
1) The some big lines of metro in Singapore is fully automatic, and remaining old lines would be too. It is really no-driver option, and no-politics directed jobs(like that on Docklands Light Railway in London). The only people are basically mechanics, with fully automatic storage, and traffic controllers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.103.25 (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
2) There is an opposition and criticism for the high car-license price and system there. For e.g. many lower income business and people are affected by unlawful and bad law raising cost of the car.("You’re pitting the rich against the poor, and guess who wins?” Chee said in an interview. “People with needs, and the guy who runs a small family business, are pitted against this wealthy family that’s buying a third car for the teenage son because he had just done well in his exams.” )

References

Not done: the first statement is sourced to an unreliable sourced to an unreliable source. The second isn't highly relevant to an article on Singapore and may be more relevant to an article on the Economy of Singapore. The proposal is fairly unreadable and the quoted inclusion is appropriate for a news article, but not a Wikipedia article. (It would be appropriate if there was an article on car-license costs in Singapore, or something similar). Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

update

1) The source may look not reliable for You, however if You will check the National Geographic films/tv shows, there was one(I just forgot the title) related to full automatic metro in Singapore.
2) On Wikipedia there is an info about protests, in every case, when the people dislike something. Even if there is only a simple "protests" word. It is always there to show, and make NPOV that not everyone like e.g. that way solving of problem. Especially it is shown in Singapore case - rest of world don't have that licenses(like in dictatorships), even smaller islands. The problem of cars traffic is solved in better way - if You want to be in traffic use car, not want, use mass transport. Of course the govt. invest more in roads too.

Not done: Please provide me with information on where you would insert those pieces of information into the article. It would be great if you could copyedit the insertions for grammar as well. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead issues

What do other editors think about the utility of these lead changes? They gum up the prose by repeating "Singapore" everywhere, despite that it should be abundantly clear that the topic is Singapore (for example, "The country is highly urbanised" --> "Singapore is highly urbanised" in a paragraph the begins "Singapore" [the removal of wikilink doesn't seem like an improvement either]). Other prose problems pop up, such as "The economy is diversified but the twin pillars are the industry and service sectors", which is quite badly phrased. Some of the changes also seem to try and put some sort of WP:Peacocky spin on the country, replacing "with very little primary rainforest remaining" with "but almost half of the country is covered by greenery", despite the two not really being comparable, as the greenery in question is mostly gardens. Another example is "Despite its small size, Singapore is a world leader in several areas", which is a vague unsourced statement clearly meant to extoll the virtues of Singapore. There's also a very large increase, about a doubling by eye comparison, in the size of the lead's history, including questionable assertions such as (emphasis added) "To persuade the British to grant it independence, Singapore joined Malaysia in 1963 and the next two years were spent in impasse." There's also a rather odd amount of detail on populations status, fertility, and a turn to immigration (the last of which isn't anywhere in the body).

The above isn't an extensive list, but I don't think the around 25% expansion (by eye) of the lead does anything except add puffery and degrade prose. CMD (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree, and I support your latest revert. -- Alarics (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling someone's been editing the lead with the express purpose of extolling the virtues of this small city state. A recent addition to the lead stated that Singapore had the third highest income per capita in the world but neglected to mention purchasing power parity, which is the calculation that statistic rests upon. That seems like a nice enough stat all by itself, but why lie by omission? Fleetham (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on what I recall from the past history, it seemed to have started with some editors who added seemingly positive stuff as a cover for at the same time including some weasel commentary. Later editors then removed only the weasel parts leaving only the overly positive parts. (Which was probably what happened with the example stated by Fleetham). POV edits can have odd and unexpected end-results... Zhanzhao (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it appears someone added the correct info, and another editor removed just the PPP bit. Hopefully other editors have been more careful! Fleetham (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi CMD. The changes you refer to have been built upon one another by numerous editors over a period of a year. I don't see anything wrong with the lead and all the issues you raise are based on your own perceptions...thinking that it is 'poorly phrased', 'gumming up the lead' etc. These are your own opinions. The only real issues you raised were the lines that 'Sg is a world leader in several areas...' and 'turning to immigration' as being unsourced. Which is not true as I see the sources listed in the economy section and in the demographics section.

Over a year's worth of unchallenged edits by numerous unrelated editors built upon one another shows that strong consensus have been reached by the community during that time and the various edits have been accepted as per WP:SILENCE and WP:CON. In fact, this is one of the strongest consensus that can be possibly achieved in Wikipedia.

I certainly do not agree that the lead is huff puff as these are cold hard facts. There is an entire paragraph dedicated to pointing out how the govt maintains strong control, and there is a perception of lack of human rights and democratic values etc. Technically, that line is totally POV and has no place in the lead but I feel it does bring up some negative aspects anda adds balance, so let it be.

I certainly do not agree with the revert you are making...which is to revert (and erase) over a year's worth of edits by numerous editors to a version written by yourself over a year ago. It is ridiculous. As per WP:BRD, you must seek consensus if you want to make changes now since you are the one who is making a BOLD edit against a year's worth of edits.

In fact, looking at the history, you clearly are displaying WP:OWN and I would advise you to move on and let other neutral editors edit the article and take it to wherever they take them.

I have no issues with adding the mention that it is PPP as stated by editors above but it is utterly unacceptable, ridiculous and against all Wiki policies such as WP:SILENCE and WP:CON (and displaying WP:OWN) to revert a year's worth of edits to your own version a year ago. Littleblackridinghood (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I think CMD is right to revert material that may be simply propaganda. The fact that content has been there for "over a year" doesn't change the worth or value of the material. As most of CMD's changes are not mutually exclusive of the prior content, why can't we simply add to what's already there? For example, the "half of city being green" and "no forest cover" seem like they both should be in the lead, no? Fleetham (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:Silence is just an essay. It definitely has value, and should be taken into account, but the community has not granted it as much weight as pages that are actually policies or guidelines. See, as a counterpoint, WP:Silence means nothing. There are various ways to achieve consensus, but in my experience the strongest consensus seems to come from a talkpage resolution. People often refer back to discussions held a long time ago to note consensus. CMD (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

To all parties: be advised that you can still be blocked for edit warring even if you have not technically violated WP:3RR. I was about to protect this article due to the content dispute, but after looking over both revisions carefully, I agree with the others above that the expanded version is not an improvement, so I have restored the shorter version.

Adding unsubstantiated, biased, or peacock language to an article is not acceptable, particularly if it needlessly bloats the lead section, which is intended to be a concise overview of the article per WP:LEAD. The WP:BURDEN is on Littleblackridinghood to support the addition of the expanded material with a better rationale than "it's been there for a year" and invoking the WP:SILENCE essay (which says silence is the weakest form of consensus) as if it has the weight of a policy or guideline, which it does not. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD clearly states that if a bold edit, such as the one Chipmunkdaivs made, is reverted, in this case by me, then a most interested person, me, is found, and the next step is to discuss it on the talkpage and not force the bold edit through by edit warring like what Chipdavis is doing. WP:BRD also states that if an edit is unchallenged and is built upon by others, then the cycle is over. If anyone is edit warring, it is clear it is the Chip who has not followed BRD.

WP:BURDEN applies only for unsourced material, of which the lines in the lead are not. They are all sourced as I can see except the line the 'PAP is often viewed as...' which is added by Davis himself.

'Silence is the weakest form of consensus'. Yes. But in this case, there was no silence, the edits have been built upon one another and reaffirmed by numerous editors for a period of over a year, which is the strongest form of consensus and the end of their respective BRD cycles. Read WP:BRD WP:CON WP:SILENCE. Until Chipdavis comes along to erase all editors' edits to the something he wrote years ago. Littleblackridinghood (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that ChipmunkDavis did initiate discussion on this talk page.

WP:BURDEN applies to the addition or restoration of any material that is reverted, sourced or not. You have not met that burden, and in any case, the puffery is largely unsourced. You have not shown why your violation of WP:LEAD, WP:PEACOCK and other guidelines is justified. You have cited no policies or content guidelines, just behavioral guidelines that apply to you also, and an essay.

And you have contradicted your own argument about silence.

I suggest you go through your proposed additions one at a time and explain why they are improvements in light of WP:LEAD. That is your WP:BURDEN. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, just because something has been "as is" on wikipedia for ages does not make it any more true.... see John Seigenthaler Sr. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You are playing a parlour game, Amatulic. Nothing you wrote is true. And all your wiki policies are misquoted or have nothing to do with my revert. Davis was trying to erase a year's worth of edits and I was preventing him from doing that by reverting his edit. I wasn't even editing the lead myself, which was written by dozens of editors. So don't bother telling me I have WP:BURDEN or anything. I was simply reverting Davis's edit and telling him to respect wiki policies, I wasn't even editing the lead myself. Littleblackridinghood (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

This is directed at Chipmunkdavis and Littleblackridinghood. There has been a request at WP:RFPP for full protection of this article because of your battling out your content disputes in the article instead of here on the Talk page. I declined the request, but if the two of you continue, I or another admin will take appropriate action. Discuss your disputes here before editing the article, and please focus on content, not on each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Singapore/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 00:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC) I'll take this... and it's a speedy fail for stability issues (edit war ongoing as I type).

A couple comments for next time:

• Several references are dead and need to be fixed. Others, like Hantu Bloggers and About.com, are not reliable. I question the reliance on newspaper articles when Singapore has had dozens, if not hundreds, of English-language books published on it (I could stop by Periplus and find a whole rack full, probably).
• The article needs a thorough copyedit (no logical reason for southeast Asia to be spelled southeast asia, for example)
• I strongly suggest the next GAN be made by an editor who has worked extensively on the article

Good luck! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Also, compare the FAs on Nauru and Indonesia. Singapore's article is already longer than any of these and may need to be trimmed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Is Singapore an American colony?

If not, what are American NGOs doing in the lead? Do we put Chinese criticisms in the lead of the United States of America article? Is Wikipedia a neo-colonial venture? Shii (tock) 00:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering adding the following line to the first paragraph of the USA article: "However, it has been [[Human Rights Record of the United States |criticized by the Chinese government]] for its human rights record." Thoughts? Shii (tock) 00:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I would not put that specific example in the lead, but I would put it in the government section of the article. Yet, a generic statement of internal/external criticism of their governing style, if it is indeed problematic, should be in the lead. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Shii about this. At any rate I do not think that specific organisation (Freedom House) should be mentioned in the lead. It is a very US-centred outfit and receives funding from the US State Department. If we have to mention any particular organisation that has criticised Singapore, Amnesty International would be more neutral. But, it is still a campaigning body with its own POV. The present wording, "governs on the basis of a strong state and prioritising collective welfare over individual rights such as freedom of speech", is a neutral statement making it clear enough that individual rights are not a big priority for Singapore, and it surely does not need to be spelled out that this would attract criticism from those for whom individual rights are more important. I don't think we ought to spoon-feed readers by seeming to tell them what to think. -- Alarics (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"if it is indeed problematic"... My point is that anything can be problematic; that is a POV. NPOV in this case means avoiding undue weight for criticism from non-governmental groups. The editor who keeps restoring this line seems to have a POV that Singapore's government needs reform, but there is no hard evidence that Singapore is having issues with either internal or external affairs as a result of its speech policies, so they resort to citing activist groups that do not belong in the lead. I agree entirely that if there is a balanced way to explain Singapore's speech policies in depth elsewhere in the article, we could link to Freedom House there. See China#Sociopolitical_issues_and_reform. Shii (tock) 08:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I added that qualifier is while I know some of Singapore and their politics, I do not know enough to know for sure if their governing style has been criticized to the level of other countries, like Belarus (of which I am more familiar with). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This was included in the lead because when the lead was rewritten last year, Alraics noted that something about the authoritarian nature the PAP is often seen with should be put in. I didn't want a list of reasons in the lead, so I argued for a single example, although from above I see it was not a useful choice.

Singapore is very often described as an authoritarian almost single party state. However, it's somewhat of an anomaly and not at all your classic authoritarian rule. It still hold elections for example, which are fully supported by the government, so calling it an "authoritarian state" without explanation has the wrong implications. Hence I think placing it out as a statement of fact wouldn't be neutral, with its being placed after the paragraph being better, as at least there is some sort of explanation. We can remove the specific examples such as Freedom House since that's undesirable. Perhaps something general such as "Despite widely perceived authoritarian rule, the government is seen as uncorrupt and has maintained strong economic growth under a capitalist system." CMD (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I would water that down further to "Despite being characterized as a one-party, authoritarian system, the government is considered legitimate and holds free elections." What do you think? Shii (tock) 11:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "the government is considered legitimate" should be included, as legitimacy is more of an opinion than a style of rule (although I wouldn't disagree that the Singaporean government has established legitimacy for itself). Besides that, I think that's probably better than mine. I'd prefer a more descriptive adjective than "free" however, as that's quite a loose term. Perhaps change "holds free elections" to "elections are not subjected to fraud"? CMD (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Usually the question with elections is whether international observers have deemed them to be "free and fair" or not. Do we have that information for Singapore from a respectable independent source? That would perhaps be a more objective comment to cite than subjective arguments about what constitutes "authoritarian", etc. "One-party state" is another difficult concept that maybe we should avoid in this case. There are opposition parties, but they claim that the PAP regime makes it very difficult for them to flourish in practice. -- Alarics (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

All of these claims could also be made about America. See, for example, Green Party of the United States Shii (tock) 01:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow your argument there. How is that article relevant? -- Alarics (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Independent sources claiming elections were not free and fair: We could find this for the 2000 US election. Opposition parties claiming the government prevents them from flourishing in practice: see Green Party and Libertarian articles. I agree that "authoritarian" is certainly an objective term. Shii (tock) 07:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

As there seems to be agreement that authoritarian is a good description, I've noted an "authoritarian ruling style" and shifted election info. CMD (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I object to this ridiculous edit. 'Authoritarian' is obviously a POV. Authoritarian by whose standard? What is considered authoritarian by someone (say Freedom House an American fault-finder) can be considered liberal by half of the world (Say the Saudis, Serbians or Malaysians). And for something to be in the lead, it must be in the article itself with a source. Which isn't the case here. Stick to the facts not to the opinions...which this clearly is one. Littleblackridinghood (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Authoritarian is a style of rule, and is not at all in the same spectrum as liberal (the opposite of which would be conservative). The PAPs rule is widely regarded as authoritarian. Sources discussing the topic in various detail: Journal of Democracy, the University of California's Asian Survey, University of Hong Kong book, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace book, Pacific Review article, Journal of Contemporary Asia article, The Economist article, Tel Aviv University Paper. There are a lot (research for more if you wish); Singapore is a classic exception to the rule of authoritarianism, as the PAP is both fairly popular and holds actual un-tampered with elections. Any one of these sources could be used if that's necessary. There was actually an agreement to put a paragraph about the PAPs ruling style in politics awhile ago, but the editor who volunteered to write it was never able to. CMD (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 'Shii' above. It is not a neutral point of view. You are making it sound like a rant from some American human rights organisation. Sorry but putting such a thing on Wikipedia is just ridiculous IMO. Littleblackridinghood (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Shii above: "I agree that "authoritarian" is certainly an objective term."

Anyway, how it's some rant from an American human rights organisation is beyond me, especially as the PAP themselves view a strong single controlling party as a good thing, as they feel opposition is just meant to oppose without being constructive. Some of the links above weren't american anyway. CMD (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Authoritarian systems are marked by the "indefinite tenure of a single party", but considering that they allow elections to be held, it more like a case of them not being voted out yet rather than them not allowing elections in the first place; I don't know if "horse before the cart" describes this situation properly. The fact that elections are being held should be included though; thats an objective fact. As for whether the elections are fair, thats subjective and any treatment of this, if included,should be follow wiki policy. Zhanzhao (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The elections, as far as all the sources I've read go, are fair and unsubjected to tampering. It's more the apparatus the PAP has built up over half a century along with their style of rule that sources view as authoritarian. The note on legitimate elections was included in the edit. CMD (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The elections themselves are squeaky-clean, by all accounts, but that isn't really the point. The alleged authoritarianism comes from the PAP leadership's treatment of opposition parties (suing them for libel, etc.) and from things like censorship of the media so there is not full freedom of speech (although the internet has made this much less true than it was). Anyway, we seem to be going round in circles in this thread. I don't now think the word authoritarian needs to be in the lead. I am happy to leave the lead as it stands, as follows: "The People's Action Party has won every election since self-government in 1959, and governs on the basis of a strong state and prioritising collective welfare over individual rights such as freedom of speech." If anyone disagrees could they please state here their proposed wording, so that we can be clear about what we are discussing? -- Alarics (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

My edit, seen here, is worded "Despite an authoritarian ruling style, the PAP holds open elections, which it has continuously won since self-government in 1959." (The election bit shifted from its current location.) This situation, of an authoritarian party (and one which is open about such things) being legitimately voted in, and by most accounts remaining quite popular, is quite notable, and possibly unique to Singapore. As such, I think it's worth mentioning it in the lead. CMD (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the present wording is better and already incorporates the point we want to make. "An authoritarian ruling style" is a rather subjective phrase. Also, using the word "despite" implies a value judgement which seems to me rather POV. -- Alarics (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

All descriptions of rule can be described as subjective, but authoritarian seems to me to be widely accepted and applied, by news sources, academia, and even some in the party (going by my memory of the last elections). Despite is with regards to the fact that authoritarian rule is generally maintained through rigged elections (or none at all). This is not the case in Singapore. CMD (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)