Talk:Singapore/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 urban planning and taxonomical breakdown 2 Sports in Singapore 3 Page too long 4 Foreign relations of singapore 5 politics of singapore 6 Republic of Singapore - Order of names 7 Gay communities 8 Human Rights / Government Drug Relationships 9 First sentence... 10 Drugs, Van Nguyen, etc. 11 Singapore, an indictment on civilisation 12 Eerie content premonition 13 double standards? 14 content list for this talk page 15 reword, please 16 The moral of this story is... 17 The introduction 18 Extensive Welfare System? 19 Weasel Words 20 bunker 21 Pictures 22 Lion? 23 Pura 24 Good Article 25 City 26 comparing Singapore with western countries 27 Is Singapore considered a First world country? 28 About adding time and latitude info 29 Archaeology 30 Literacy rate 31 Merging back refs 32 Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive

urban planning and taxonomical breakdown

As you can see from Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board#Standardisation, I feel mentioning urban planning is very important...it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the Singapore article at all, and also the other reason is that there should be something of the sort "Singapore is divided into 5 urban planning areas", such that the reader can easily flow from the general to the specific in a form of taxonomy. Should this be in the Geography Section? Plus, we can avoid a huge mess of articles of Singapore places (as they all tie in into the main Singapore article hierarchially) in the first place. For example, if you look at the United States of America example, they *do* mention political divisions and mention how they break down, so I'm thinking we can do a parallel, just not as extensive. Any thoughts? I have a plan to create a hierarchial template, and maybe even an entire section for it? -- Natalinasmpf 17:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some of you might want to check the SG Pedian's Notice Board Talk, I just proposed a new policy on creating and organising articles concerning Singapore there. -- Natalinasmpf 1 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)

Sports in Singapore

The article on Sports in Singapore is up. A part of it is taken from Culture_of_Singapore#Recreation_and_Sports. If interested, please help to review and contribute. Once ready, we would want to transfer the introductory portion here, as a section in "Singapore" article. Cheers, --Vsion 6 July 2005 06:41 (UTC)

No Jocelyn yeo? :D--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 09:47 (UTC)

Should be a subsection of the Culture section, rather having its own section. Would be less awkward (IMO). -- Natalinasmpf 6 July 2005 10:02 (UTC)

But that would mean a very big subsection isnt it? I personally feel there is space for its own page with so much emphasise on sports development here nowadays--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)

Didn't we do that with the climate section? (Well before much of it was condensed). IMO, two or so paragraphs wouldn't be too large, unless we plan to have more as a lead-in? -- Natalinasmpf 6 July 2005 10:58 (UTC)

Hm....oh you are refering to the text in the Singapore page? Sory....I tot you were asking for this page to be merged with Culture_of_Singapore#Recreation_and_Sports! :D--Huaiwei 6 July 2005 11:20 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant. Since this is on the Singapore talkpage and all. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 6 July 2005 12:08 (UTC)

Done, Joscelin Yeo added. Wasn't aware that she has 2 Asian Games Bronzes. -- Vsion 7 July 2005 04:33 (UTC)

Page too long

This page is good, but really too long. But I'm not sure where to snip. It would be no good if I saw away those important information which does not appear in any other referring pages. ;-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 04:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I agreed that the page is too long, especially the politics section, as commented in "peer review". I'm summarizing and moving some content mainly to Politics of Singapore and Laws of Singapore. -- Vsion 06:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I was just wondering...was it really too long? Take the on-going nomination for Hong Kong, which was generally favourable despite it being much longer and having many subsections which were previously removed in this page for being "inconsistent" with other country pages. Some people have argued that Singapore is a country as well as a city, to justify more subsections, but that does not seem to have an effect. Have we actually tried too hard to shorted it? (oh btw, no one seem to have an issue with the international rankings part in Hong Kong...an idea which looks like it was inspired from this page! :D)--Huaiwei 06:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I think readability is more important than total length, and a single long section is indeed quite daunting for readers. Currently, the "Politics" and "Culture" sections are rather long; my suggestion is to reduce it (while preserving the content in another page) or split it into more sections which is lesser of an evil. As for the intl. ranking, removing it is just a temporary measure because of an objection raised in peer review. Hopefully, there won't be another reviewer who want it back. ;-) --Vsion 07:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Some more sections would be needed, e.g. Education of Singapore, etc.. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

But previous nominations asked for them to be removed leh........sigh...........--Huaiwei 15:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Y ar? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Aiyah half the folks think its too long, the other half thinks its too short. The thing is some think this should follow a "country format", while others think it should follow that of a "city". What the fish! :D --Huaiwei 05:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

How come all the boxes all are not in proper layout

We do have Education in Singapore - the greatest glare right now is we lack a Ministry of Education (Singapore) article. -- Natalinasmpf 21:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Foreign relations of singapore

I would suggest that some on in Singapore would elaborate on the views of Singaporean about the relationship between Vietnam and Singapore. I have been observing this for a long time and found that there is a very important undocumented (at least in the West) about the evolving relationship between Singapore and Vietnam.

Economically Singapore is now probably the largest investor into Vietnam's economy. But since the announcement of Singaporean Government policy to look towards Vietnam for economic union, and that indicated a exceptional revelation. In the past Singapore wanted to rent an island from Vietnam in order to establish Singapore mark II. The island of interest is called "Phu Quoc". It's just down South of Vietnam. In the football games, once Singapore had been knocked out and Vietnam entered the final facing Thailand or anyother country, you see Singaporeans waving Vietnamese flags and cheered the Vietnamese team on. Further more Singapore men have healthy apetite for Vietnamese girls when it comes to matrimony. So now, Singapore is no longer interested in renting an island. It seems to want the whole Vietnam. But surely Vietnam is a much bigger and more powerful country, therefore it's not a casual relationship. Singaporean sucessive governments are famous for being long term planners.

The question is "Is Singapore looking for some kind of economic union and millitary protection under the umbrella of a future Vietnam and Singapore confederation?". The cheap labour in Vietnam is attractive to Singaporean investors. The millitary history of Vietnam is reassuring as friends and foes are well-defined. The cultural compatibility is obvious (close attachement to Chinese cultures). Vietnam is open to all religions just like Singapore. More importantly, Vietnam does not view Singaporeans as Chinese. That means centuries old predjudices against the Chinese from the North would not interfere. I would not be surprised if Singapore and Vietnam will enter a marriage in this century. Both sides have strong complementary values to each other. While Vietnam needs the economic skills of the Singaporeans, a formal integration with Vietnam would secure the future of Singaporean national security. Surely both sides are smart enough to know that Vietnam would never offer soldiers for hire. So the only way is to work toward some kind of union for mutual benefit. Dmaivn 03:0, 26 June 2006(UTC)

politics of singapore

guys, the politics is obviously being written by people who have never been to singapore. power in singapore has been controlled by the prime minister - and there have been basically only 2 ( a father and a son) with one guy serving in the interim. the president is a ceremonial post.Kennethtennyson 05:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I am quite surprised that the website states that government in Singapore has a clean and corruption free image. Surely that would haveto be an example of some of th evandalism to this website? In reality, the wife of the Prime Minister chairs the board of a multi billion dollar Government owned corporation. The personal fortunes of several key government figures are hopelessly entwined with government enterprises. Safeguards against conflict of interest, safeguards against nepotism are painfully absent. I cannot imagine that any fair minded person could agree that the government of Singapore has a corruption free image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.214.83.215 (talk • contribs).

If that can surprised you, then be ready to be shocked by this Transparency International report: Corruption Perceptions Index 2005, in which Singapore is ranked 5 out of 159 countries and economies, in terms of perceived lowest levels of corruption. -69.234.67.253 09:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Corruption free, yes. Civil liberties plenty. Only political freedoms are suppressed (which perplexes many political scientists). Of course, things don't always stay that way, butthat's how it is currently. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 09:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well that depends on what are considered civil liberties and what are considered political freedom. Some may consider freedom of press and freedom of speech civil rights, while others may consider them as political rights. — Instantnood 21:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I question why the Amnesty International articles were given so much prominence in the further readings and external links sections. You don’t find references to Amnesty International in the Wikipedia articles on the United States, Israel or United Kingdom, for example, even though there are more shocking AI reports on these countries. In addition, including AI’s “The death penalty: A hidden toll of executions” without also including the Singapore government’s rebuttal is selective bias. A good article that should be included is Kishore Mahbubani’s “Following Singapore's lead on the road of development”. You should also request better articles from the National University of Singapore’s political science, economics and social science departments. http://www.mahbubani.net/articles/spore-windows-15012004.html I will be forwarding a complaint to Wikipedia management about how this talk page is being controlled. Jack April 13, 2006

The Singapore article does include a comment on Singapore government response to AI, it says: "... The Singapore Government responded to Amnesty International's report in January 2004 on its Home Affairs website and reasserted capital punishment as a sovereign right for the most serious crimes ..." Thus, the article is not as bad as you describe, but of course it is not perfect and still a work-in-progress. Also this article has to be brief on each topic because there are so many areas to cover. Please refer to Capital punishment in Singapore for a more detailed writeup on death penalty. --Vsion 00:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In defending your article, you overlook the obvious. Those two Amnesty reports in the reference sections are eye-catching to a reader. The Amnesty article is the second item in the Further Readings section (“The death penalty: A hidden toll of executions” should be in Capital punishment in Singapore, not in the main article). Amnesty again is the third item in the External Links section (“Amnesty International's 2005 report on Singapore”). A reader might go directly to these reference sections, skim through the main article and miss the comment you mentioned, etc. In these reference sections, no articles are provided to respond to Amnesty.

Thus, the effect of the prominence given to Amnesty in your Wikipedia article is to intimate that human rights abuses are one of the biggest problems in Singapore. That’s misleading. In the big picture, there are other issues that are far greater priority and impact in Singapore, a tiny city-state with no natural resources and no margin for error. In any case, the human rights issues are relatively minor and not much worse compared to most countries, even certain Western “liberal” democracies which criticize Singapore. Thus neutrality of this aspect of the Singapore article should be disputed until the issue is resolved.

I’d rate the Singapore article as average, C plus at best. It certainly needs more work and balance. In many parts, the article appears to reflect the bias of a group of Singaporean editors with a left-leaning bias and inexperience, if Natalinasmpf’s bio is any indicator. Get more constructive viewpoints from experts and good writers instead of deleting comments sent to this talkpage. As I said, you should request comments and references from the National University of Singapore’s political science, economics and social science faculties, or even from government organizations such as Singapore Economic Development Board, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Health, Education, etc. Museum of Civilization. Just filter out varnished information.

I appreciate that brevity is important. However, a number of inconsequential facts are over described in your article contains, e.g., see "Sentosa Luge". More useful information could be added if you edit out the fat.

More information on Singapore’s achievements in economy, education, health, etc. should have been included. I gave many links in my deleted posts throughout the talk page still available in this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Singapore&oldid=48342633

In particular, check the following links:

• http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html
• http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/bg1781.cfm
• http://www.edb.gov.sg/edb/sg/en_uk/index/why_singapore/singapore_rankings.html
• http://www.edb.gov.sg/edb/sg/en_uk/index/why_singapore.html
• http://www.transparency.org/policy_and_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2005
• http://www.edb.gov.sg/edb/sg/en_uk/index/why_singapore/singapore_facts__.html
• http://www.spring.gov.sg/portal/newsroom/news/speeches/02_07_24_SPF.html
• http://app.stb.com.sg/asp/new/new03a.asp?id=3704
• http://www.frommers.com/destinations/singapore/
• http://www.fodors.com/miniguides/mgresults.cfm?destination=singapore@146&cur_section=ove

Something should be written about Singapore's healthcare for its 4.5 million citizens. Singapore was ranked 6th in overall health system performance and 14th on health level performance, higher than UK, Australia and the United States, according to the World Health Organization’s world health report. Go to page 200 (Table 10) in first link below. This 2000 report examines and compares health systems around the world in 1997. It’s probable that Singapore has improved relatively since 1997.

• http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_annex_en.pdf
• http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/index.html

Singapore’s education system is rated very highly in international reports, such as the Global Competitiveness Report and the World Competitiveness Yearbook. Eg., quality of mathematics and science education.

The following should be included in the reference section, especially Kishore Mahbubani’s article “Following Singapore's lead on the road of development”, to provide balance to views such as Amnesty’s.

• http://www.mahbubani.net/articles/spore-windows-15012004.html
• http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9812103759/sr=1-1/qid=1144621606/ref=sr_1_1/002-3606976-2820816?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books

Jack, April 14, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.154.131.201 (talk • contribs).

Okay, I moved one AI's link from "Reference" to "Notes" which is "less prominent". I can't delete the other link at the "External links" section, otherwise I will be again accused of pro-government and censorship. --Vsion 09:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of Amnesty’s statistics and arguments can still be useful discussion points, even if it is biased, so keeping the Amnesty report in the External Links section is acceptable. But suggest you re-position it near the bottom, not prominently at number three on the list. Something like Kishore Mahbubani’s article should be placed before Amnesty’s biased report, as it provides context. As well, consider incorporating some of his points in the main Singapore article. Ask Mahbubani to update his article and contribute to the Singapore article. http://www.mahbubani.net/articles/spore-windows-15012004.html

Singapore is a unique success story against the odds that your article has not done justice in highlighting. That’s where the Mahbubani article would help. Singaporeans tend to be insecure – they think things western are superior (such as Amnesty’s questionable evaluation) and consider things Singapore as inferior. There is not need to apologize or feel unworthy against “western ideals” that are not universally agreed or genuinely practiced in Western countries. In many ways, Singapore is better; but no country is utopia and development is continual.

My past comments, which you deleted, will help deal with critics who accuse you of “pro-government and censorship.” Too bad if detractors want to discredit the positive realities as “pro-government”. In Western countries, the realities have been influenced by government or corporate interests, shrouded by public relations. There is an honesty and bluntness in Singapore that you don’t often find in PR-manipulated Western nations, where consent is also manufactured.

In any case, such accusations should not primarily drive your editing mission, criteria and quality. Neither should the personal ideological biases of the editors and authors. The goal is not to make every critic and yourselves happy. The goal should be to ensure an exceptional article that offers the best and fairest possible bird’s-eye overview and perspective on the country Singapore to users doing a Wikipedia search. How would an ideologically-untainted Martian, who happened to be studying Singapore, write to describe the country?

In the big picture there is a context of key points and facts that best describe and explain Singapore. There doesn’t need to be “balance” between gloss and warts if, in reality, there is no balance. Some points are more critical than others so less important issues, including many issues brought up by Amnesty, should not be overblown. For example, compare the Singapore and Israel articles. Singapore would appear to have far more negative issues, but the perception should be opposite: in reality, Israel is hardly a liberal democracy, has censorship and a horrific human rights record. Singapore is more civilized in comparison. Even the historical narrative on the Israel page misleads with false impressions and omissions, if you know your facts, indicating “pro-government and censorship” there. Jack, 14 April 2006

It will be helpful if you can ask your friends who are experts and good writers from NUS’s political science, economics and social science faculties, EDB, MFA, MOH, MOE, etc., to contribute objectively to this and other articles on a voluntary basis. --Vsion 13:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just e-mail all those departments, Mahbubani directly (also contact Singapore Management University departments). You might start with political science professor Jon Quah at NUS, who is an international expert on corruption and Singapore politics, and whose wife, Stella Quah, is an internally acclaimed sociology professor (just e-mail him directly, which you can get from the NUS political science faculty (staff) site). No need for an introduction. Just tell them what’s your goal, send them the article, ask for their objective help (content experts to provide a few short points and suggestions), and inform them Wikipedia reserves the right to edit for objectivity, etc. As editors you determine the final content. It’s an opportunity for them to contribute quickly to improve a Wikipedia article that might help Singapore in the long run and it’s an opportunity for you to build your group of expert contributors. Btw, the Singapore government (like other governmnets) must be aware of this article and who you all are. I expect they’ll be happy to contribute within the guidelines you set. Good luck. Jack, 14 April 2006

Of course they know us, we have already been screened and cleared by ISD. Ever wonder why there are so few active sg-editors and the new ones keep disappearing? As for professionals or civil servants contributing to wikipedia, we can try to contact, but I think you are too optimistic. It took us three emails to the Istana just to get the President's full name. Btw, wikipedia is probably the only primary source on the Internet with the correct President's full name, you can't find it in domain: .gov.sg. --Vsion 22:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, see Human rights in the United States; the article isn't very kind to the United States either. Perhaps it's just acknowledged there's still a lot of things to do. Amnesty International is a reputable and long-standing organisation. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Elle aka Natalinasmpf, I can understand why you would consider the left-leaning Amnesty International to be a reputable organization, since you admit to being anarchist –communist in orientation. Amnesty isn’t as reputable as you think, outside of its PR image, so don’t believe everything you read in the Wikipedia article on Amnesty.

According to Francis Boyle, former Amnesty International board member and an international law professor: “Amnesty International is primarily motivated not by human rights but by publicity. Second comes money. Third comes getting more members. Fourth, internal turf battles. And then finally, human rights, genuine human rights concerns. To be sure, if you are dealing with a human rights situation in a country that is at odds with the United States or Britain, it gets an awful lot of attention, resources, man and womanpower, publicity, you name it, they can throw whatever they want at that. But if it's dealing with violations of human rights by the United States, Britain, Israel, then it's like pulling teeth to get them to really do something on the situation.”

• http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/art.php?aid=4573
• http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Amnesty_International
• http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij11262003.html
• http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=12371
• http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij10132004.html

My point is why the Amnesty International articles were given too much prominence in the further readings and external links sections in the Singapore article, when there are no references to Amnesty International in the Wikipedia articles on the United States, Israel or United Kingdom, for example. On reading the Israel article, it’s clear to me that the editors were proud Israelis who presented positive picture of Israel and omitted numerous facts that did not support this picture. I’m not suggesting that the Singapore article be a false picture, but have the pride to write a better, more balanced article that includes more information on Singapore’s achievements. Amnesty is not the final word on human rights and related issues; however, its questionable agenda is too easily swallowed by idealistic or naïve people.

In any case, your example is irrelevant. My point wasn’t about a section in the main article that isn’t kind to the country (in any case, the section was boldly marked “neutrality disputed” in the US section).

Jack, April 14, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.154.131.201 (talk • contribs).

I have mixed opinion on Amnesty International. I'm aware that it is influenced by political agenda and biased to some degree, but it does compile fact and statistics which are generally reliable and useful. The capital punishment is a good example. How many Singaporeans knew about the number of death penalty executions? Very few had any idea; even SM Goh got the figure wrong. Thus, the AI report, if you ignore the commentary, can be a valuable resource, and I wouldn't dismiss it completely. --Vsion 13:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Typically, a small minority kicks up a storm about the death penalty, or some other “human rights” issue. How many Singaporeans are truly interested in information or a debate on executions? How many Americans, even with news media giving far more publicity to the issue, really care? About 70 percent of Americans are in favour of the death penalty for murderers (80% in 1994). Unlike Singapore, there are some bloodthirty American TV and radio commentators, including women, who enthusiastically demand that criminals to be put to death, even if there are also bleeding-heart commentators against the death penalty.

Compare Goh Chok Tong’s comments in the Amnesty report with excerpts of then Texas Governor George W. Bush’s interview in 1999: “In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker (who was waiting to be executed). "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them," he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "'Please,'" Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "'don't kill me.'" I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking.” This would have made a nice quote on the front page of Amnesty’s Singapore reports.

Amnesty and some Western press are adept at subtly making mountains out of molehills and conjuring the perception of evasive behaviour (and at being selective: hypocritical BBC was often was a cheerleader for Tony Blair’s government as he misled Britain into the Iraq invasion). In a BBC interview, “Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong was questioned about the number of people executed in 2003. He stated that he believed it was "in the region of about 70 to 80". When asked why he did not know the precise number he said, "I’ve got more important things to worry about." Two days later he retracted his statement, saying that the death penalty had in fact been carried out on ten occasions so far during the year…Amnesty International has recorded at least four death sentences passed in 2003 but the true figure is likely to be higher.” In other words, it’s probable that Goh initially cited either annual figures from a previous year or a recent ‘high execution’ year that was on his mind, and later corrected his remark once he got updated data that was not inconsistent with Amnesty’s data and speculations. If the BBC is awake during British parliamentary sessions, they should notice British ministers loften fumbling with statistics when their civil service hasn’t updated them. Goh really should have more important things to worry about. And I’m not trivializing here.

Amnesty is prone to sensationalism, even as it contradicts itself, with comments such as “Official information about the use of the death penalty in Singapore is shrouded in secrecy…on rare occasions it has made information about executions available to journalists or in response to a parliamentary question. From this information Amnesty International has been able to compile statistics of executions.” What a "shroud of secrecy"! In addition, it’s questionable to claim that “executions…achieve nothing but revenge” without considering the deterrent effect it has had in Singapore. Just because the death penalty is not used effectively and primarily as a deterrent in Western cultures where it’s perceived more as an “eye for an eye” and where crime is a worse problem because their entire crime prevention system is ineffective. Jack, 14 April 2006

Republic of Singapore - Order of names

I'm not even Malay but Chinese-Eurasian and I don't know if it a small issue with anybody but it has irritated enough to write it here - of the 4 official languages, Malay is our NATIONAL language - the tongue in which we sing our anthem; the proper title of our President is in Malay, not to forget the line of Malay Sultans that came before the brits.

As a modern Republic, the country belongs to ALL it's citizens - I am acutely aware of the issue of Taman Melayu and the troubles of racial riots that came about in the 50's and 60's. But as a matter of respect and deference, I feel the proper Malay name of Singapore should come before the other tongues.

If I'm not mistaken, since this is the English Wikipedia, by convention, English names are given priority. It would be confusing if Malaysia was officially named as Persekutuan Malaysia instead of the Federation of Malaysia, wouldn't it? Johnleemk | Talk 13:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Malay WAS our national language. Though out National Anthem is in Malay (and all the other examples listed here), it has since been changed to ENGLISH.

Gay communities

The article lists internet gay communities that have evolved in response to the ban on gay sex. Two of the cited articles have no page but two others link to something that has nothing to do with homosexual rights (Red Queen and Sambal). Could we fix this please? I'm not sure how to distinguish these the political counterparts from these terms.--Atlastawake 18:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Human Rights / Government Drug Relationships

I know that many singaporeans dislike me putting in new sections on the Singapore page about these very controversial subjects, but I beleive that the Singapore page is the most appropriate page for it.

What I am prepared to do is create a new article regarding these issues as long as I can create a new sub-section on the main Singapore page that is highly visable with a link to the new article I create.

These are very important issues, they are not POINTS OF VIEW, they are well documented facts by NGO's and Foreign Government Departments / Foreign Media outlets.

People should ignore their patriotism and allow factual pieces to exist within the page. They maybe hard to swallow but thats life.

Mattrix18 14:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Sign your posts! Let me tell you something. I don't enjoy being Singaporean. But hav you read WP:NPOV? What you want to add is a blatant violation of that. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 13:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

"well documented facts by NGO's and Foreign Government Departments / Foreign Media outlets"? I am not sure, but if this comment is made in contrast to government-controlled propaganda on domestic affairs, than I suppose that is just as un-NPOV as well?--Huaiwei 14:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

"What you want to add is a blatant violation of that." No it is not. I have referenced my works to outside sources. They are not my points of view, they are evidence based points of fact. Mattrix18 14:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The facts you are adding are already in the article. All you are changing is the wording, which is blatantly twisted in opposition towards the government. Johnleemk | Talk 14:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I am expanding on what has already been said. A lot of the stuff in the first section is expanded on in the latter sections of the article and no one protests about that. If what I write sounds like opposition to the Government then that is your take on it. If you would like me to add some Singaporean Government Propaganda to what I have written then fine, ill do that. Mattrix18 14:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not the point. Your previous edits seem to be just tacked onto the article and this makes it look somewhat arkward. Putting it in the Laws of Singapore article would be much better. And external links are generally pruned by other editors to avoid it growing out of hand, it would be better if it could be used in the Reference section. Btw, don't forget about NPOV! :) --Andylkl ^{(talk) (contrib)} 15:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

To somewhat repeat what Andy said, your wording is POV. Plain as that. You do not balance POV by adding more POV in the other direction. This article is also bloated as it is, so if you want to write about this (it goes without saying that this should be in a neutral manner) do so in the article Andy suggested. Finally, external links go in the external links section and nowhere else. That is policy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I still think it is a unique issue in regards to Singapore about its financial and moral support / links with Drug Lords. It is not something most other nations (especially democracies) have. Mattrix18 17:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, most countries don't have a intelligent design battle either - only the United States has it - what a unique situation. But it's not a general section, that every single country has, and therefore shouldn't an entire section. It can be mentioned in a section, as a link, as a single statement. THe fact that it is something that most other nations doesn't have excludes it from being mentioned as an entire section, because the format is, most countries have laws, politics, geography, and demographics, and law, but not individual sections for every controversy. Do you see what I mean? You should also assume we're not including it because we're being nationalistic or anything, there are other reasons, like format. -- Natalinasmpf 17:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design is not a government policy. Thats the point. Mattrix18 17:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, the decision of whether to teach intelligent design in schools is. It was only an analogy as well - first, this is an encylopedia article - the general hierarchy of things is from the most general to the most specific. A controversy like this will probably have its own article, perhaps if it really warrants it, be linked from the main Singapore page, but not have it's own section! -- Natalinasmpf 19:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The point is, I don't go adding every single human rights violation by the United States to the United States article....however, I might be keen to add it to the Human rights in the United States article - do you see what I mean? It's about classification and organisation here: what you are adding is very specific. This page is for very general things. You don't add an entire "section" for a country based on several incidents.......sections for countries include, law, politics, economy, etc. not every issue it has. -- Natalinasmpf 15:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Mattrix18, even if you want to highlight the issue of Singapore's supposed "sponsorship" of drug loads in Myanmar, I do wonder if you did your own due research for a more balanced viewpoint irregardless of your claims that you did. If you may read the Singapore envoy's article in the Aussie's paper The Age, he made it clear, that the Myanmar episode was actually the result of anti-govt propaganda grossly exagerated by Singapore's best friend Chee Soon Juan, a story he didnt manage to substaintiate even after the government challenged him to do so. If you are adamant about adding that kind of information, I would demand that you offer opposing views about it as well.--Huaiwei 15:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

First sentence...

...uh, I'm just popping by to do some research and am not an expert on Wikipedia or Singapore, but having the page start "Singapore (language variants) is a barbaric and blood thirsty ..." doesn't seem very mature, authoritative or neutral. Plus, "bloodthirsty" is one word. Is somebody working out some personal grievance here? This is NOT encycopaedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.129.135.114 (talk • contribs).

It's not. People are upset over capital punishment in Singapore and seem to be intentionally vandalising this article. Thanks for pointing this out. Johnleemk | Talk 15:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, the person they are bitching about is now dead and they should have given up by now...cos he hangs! he hangs! Comradeash 23:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe they shouldn't give up, some people find executing individuals for non-violent crimes a pretty horrid violation of fundamental human rights. Not saying it belongs on the Wikipedia article by any means, but taunting people who find offensive the recent execution with something like "...cos he hangs! he hangs!" really does little to forward the discussion... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.53.226.6 (talk • contribs).

Not everyone shares European Enlightenment conceptions of human rights. Some people think that community and security are more important than individual rights. You can lambast them if you want, but the assumption is worth highlighting for any useful discussion. I think this article would benefit from a discussion of the Asian values debate, in which the leaders of Singapore are major players. (I don't know how to sign this, but if I could I would.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.139.174 (talk • contribs).

So, 71.106.139.174, according to "Asian values" the ghoulish gloat that He hangs! he hangs! is justified because it engenders "community and security". Have I got that right? Wulfilia 16:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I never said anything in justification or support of that ghoulish gloat. So no, you got that WRONG. I was just making a suggestion to improve the article. I personally do hold a liberal conception of human rights and I feel that the death penalty is morally wrong. But I'm mature enough to realize that this is a complex issue and not everyone agrees with me, and discussing the actual philosophical basis of the disagreement might help move this debate forward. Or, we could just hurl oversimplified and unnuanced accusations at each other, because that is always very constructive. I can't stand people who can't tell the difference between clarifying an opposing point of view and actually subscribing to it. These people are a plague on the discursive world.

Trafficking heroin is hardly a non-violent crime. As far as I see it, it has some pretty violent side effects, ie. causing death, addiction, and whatnot. -- Natalinasmpf 03:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"some people find executing individuals for non-violent crimes a pretty horrid violation of fundamental human rights". Others like myself think drugs are extremely harmful substances which ruins lifes, perhaps more so than a serial killer can ever cause.--Huaiwei 04:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Heroin and illegal drugs fund terrorists, who grow narcotics to fund their causes. Tobacco and alcohol and the other hand, does not (although I am too against them). In this case, drug trafficking is a security threat. -- Natalinasmpf 12:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Very biased point of view "Singapore is a barbaric and blood thirsty..." has no NPOV. The effects of drugs are very serious. It does not only affect the person but people around him eg. family members or friends. They turn to crimes to buy more drugs, and are especially addicted and they suffer withdrawal symptomps. --Terenceong1992 05:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

(whoever wrote this comment should think that if those drugs were made legal, quality products could be produced that would induce less harm (yes there is harm, but doesnt alcohol and tobacco cause harm too, to users and those arround them) as well crimes to raise money to buy drugs would plummet as the drugs would become as cheap as chips)....ps. did u ever think that capital punishment not only punishes the criminal but others around him too (eg. mother who was not even allowed to hug her son.) how cruel and heinous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.23.157.187 (talk • contribs).

What? Texas practices the death penalty. A lot of country uses dealth penalties. As I see it, we gave him a fair trial. That is a democratic right, unlike I don't know, the United States that continues to hold people without trial in Guantanamo Bay? -- Natalinasmpf 15:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

A digression: I wonder if the guy who first synthesized heroin back in 1874 ever had any regrets about his discovery... :> — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Singapore and the rest of south east asian nations that violate the basic and fundamental human rights of citizens of the Western world (as declared by the united nations, league of nations, and the most powerful countries on earth) will have the same returned to them one thousand fold over when it is invaded occupied and cleansed of the suit-wearing monkeys who run the dictatorships (why do u think the US is practising long-range (trans pacific) airforce bomber flights across to the northern territory, australia... to practice reaching another nation very nearby (hint: singapore, indonesia, etc)). it is hypocritical to hang a small-time drug trafficker (who was taking drugs OUT of singapore) using a rope made from the hashish plant, while those running singapore provide a haven for known drug LORDS from cambodia, and provide millions of dollars (or bannanas or whatever it is that is used over there) to these people to create the drugs in the first place. shame singapore, shame. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.23.157.187 (talk • contribs).

While my country may be slightly authoritarian, and in fact I defy many of the authorities, I stand by the drug laws and its penalty. It does not violate human rights to execute someone for trafficking heroin. Heroin is a security threat. Australia is a large nation - maybe you have the luxury of seeing your people get wasted, but we're quite smaller, and we cannot afford our only resource - skilled people - and thus allowing our port to thrive to be compromised. Drugs compromise this. If you remove Singapore, by the way, then you will seriously undermine support of the US of other ASEAN countries, and perhaps prevent reform in the long run - like I don't know, intervention in Myanmar. It is ironic - but hypocritical to hang someone with a rope used from hashish plant, because you can't use rope to get high. Financial aid to other countries is not funding the drug trade. It is financial aid. Get to your senses. -- Natalinasmpf 15:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Such a statement as yours, overloaded with blatant lies and assumptions and ignorance as it is, does not deserve to be over-glorified with anything more than a reply of one sentence.

P.S. Why do people who say this sort of thing never ever sign their posts? — Kimchi.sg | Talk 09:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Cos there is anger. And formalities and anger don't go hand in hand. - Mailer Diablo 11:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I made the original comment that the execution was a violation of human rights and the reason I didn't sign it is because I don't care to learn how, I never post on Wikipedia, but noticed this article and felt like saying something. And though I can respect the fact that drugs cause a littany of associated social ills, I think someone above made a good point that those same social ills exist as a by-product of the legal status given to those drugs and that legalization and freedom of choice would eliminate much of the damage drugs do to a society. Some people believe that humans are by birth given the ultimate right to do as they please so long as it doesn't impede others rights' to do the same. I would argue that every Singaporean should have the right to purchase heroin if they so choose as no other person has the right to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their own body, including the use of drugs. However given that we're operating in the real world, Singapore would be better served to reduce the number of people who want to buy heroin in the first place as well as maybe taking a step back and thinking about the very basics of the series of events leading to an execution like this. Person A (consenting adult that they are) decides to put in the effort to meet up with Person B (another consenting adult) specifically for the purchase of drugs. Money and drugs change hands, both parties happy with the result. Persons X,Y, and Z decide executing Person B solves the problem and does so knowing that THEIR ACTION MADE A DIFFERENCE. After all, I'm sure Person A no longer wants drugs, right? And certainly there could never, ever, ever be another Person B, right? I'm afraid not, both still exist and both are itching to make the same transaction again. Singapore's been executing away for more than 20 years (at #1 per capita for executions in the world no less), maybe they just haven't been at it long enough? I'm sure 40 or 50 more years of executions will get the point across and eventually people will just stop. And when I speak of drugs, I speak of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, drugs that are terribly addictive and whose use carries with it physical as well as legal danger. But the Singaporeans go a step further and say that a little over a pound of marijuana is such a terrible ill visited upon their society that you must die for smoking it. Well now, are we yet into the territory where we're comparing apples to oranges? Have you ever heard of person smoking themselves to death in a tragic marijuana overdose? Or maybe 14-year old prostitutes just looking to score that next joint? In any case, I'll ridicule your laws no more, but I can't help but feel sad for not only those poor Singaporeans who are hung each year for mistakes of their youth, but also for the misguided bureaucrats who believe that what they're doing is actually helping the problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.53.226.6 (talk • contribs).

You assume that A and B are "consenting adult". How about my kid C, and your child D and the drugs lord E came along and enticed C and D saying "C'mon, give it a try, nobody died from overdose". Have you consider this problem? Please note that Khoa Nguyen got into drug problem before he was 18, has the society failed to protect him? Anyway, your argument is more relevant to Arguments for and against drug prohibition, you may wish to comment there. --Vsion 05:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against drug prohibition in Singapore because that's not realistic, what I'm arguing is that drug education produces better results for the money than the draconian application of capital punishment. You can say that kids are affected and hurt, but tell me how capital punishment has worked to reduce the drug problem (children included)? Have drug-related executions fallen? No. Have people in Singapore given up their demand for drugs? No. The argument for executing these people is deterrence, so who's been deterred? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.53.226.6 (talk • contribs).

Are you sure you are familiar with the social and political situation in Southeast Asia and well-researched on these issues? You made several statements on facts; but they are all wrong. --Vsion 08:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

We already have drug education. We already have drug rehabilitation. Note that we don't execute people for using drugs - we execute people for trafficking drugs. Drug trafficking is an activity of organised crime - ie. something warlords, gangsters and mob bosses do. We have mercy for drug users, not that we're already being bombarded them everyday with anti-drug messages, but if you're carrying 396 grams of heroin, you are likely to be a trafficker. Using drugs is one thing. Dealing drugs is another. -- Natalinasmpf 14:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"Singapore and the rest of south east asian nations that violate the basic and fundamental human rights of citizens of the Western world (as declared by the united nations, league of nations, and the most powerful countries on earth) will have the same returned to them one thousand fold over when it is invaded occupied and cleansed of the suit-wearing monkeys who run the dictatorships (why do u think the US is practising long-range (trans pacific) airforce bomber flights across to the northern territory, australia... to practice reaching another nation very nearby (hint: singapore, indonesia, etc))." - Quoted from earlier in this section

If we do not punish drug traffickers, have you ever thought about the other effects it might have on other people? And it is CLEARLY stated in the rules of Singapore that people found guilty of carring more than a certain amount of a drug will be sentenced to the death penalty. Blame the DRUG TRAFFICKERS for getting involved in this, NOT US. Why are more and more people fall to drugs daily? Why are more and more people suffering from cancers, tumours, etc? It is BECAUSE OF DRUGS. Drugs decrease efficiency in the long run - what will that do to a nations economy? Bet you didn't think of that when you were typing your post.

Drugs, Van Nguyen, etc.

It is blatant POV to keep any reference to drugs & Van Nguyen out of the article. It doesn't need to be huge, but it needs to be included. It also needs to be mentioned that tourists who did not intend to smuggle drugs have been hashly punnished by Singapore. Face it, such things are the source of much comment on the country. JeffBurdges 12:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. A warning should be written somewhere.

• Thank you, yes we agree about that. It should be summarised enough though as the article Singapore is quite cluttered, with the bulk of its content at its sub-pages. You may leave suggestions on how the text should be expressed here, and we'll be working on it after the page is unlocked. :) - Mailer Diablo 15:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• A brief sentence - ie. an example of capital punishment in Singapore. In fact, we do already mention it. I see no reason to mention Nguyen - he's not of major political importance (ie. not a leader, or a founder), he's just a case. Unless it leads to severance of ties or something, I see no reason to include it, because, this is an encylopedia, and Nguyen is indeed notable, but not so notable as to be mentioned on the main page. -- Natalinasmpf 03:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• • No a short list of notable cases is very worth mentioning. Really, all notable calses should be mentioned, but on Singapore's politics page, not all here. The reason for this is that wikipedia searching sucks so bad that you can't find the cases unless you hit What links here, which won't help n00bs. I say briefly mention the flavor of the month here, and mention all notable cases on Singapore's politics page. JeffBurdges 21:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC) BTW, all then otable cases should ideally link together, or to the section of the politics page.
    • Yes, mentioning on the Law page, not the main Singapore page. I mean, if you see Human rights in the United States they do mention case by case, which is the appropriate context for mentioning specific cases. Nguyen and Fay, IIRC are the only notable cases in Singapore's political system, as well as Took Leng How, who murdered Huang Na. I do not think we should mention specific cases on the main Singapore article, not because of the POV or anything, but merely because other country articles do not, and it is not notable enough considering we have limited space. Ideally one should aim for stable material to build on, not a list of cases that changes every month. If you really wanted to go for it, I suggest creating an article like "list of executions in Singapore", linking to it from the law page and the main Singapore page, which because being a link, one would be able to connect to. -- Natalinasmpf 03:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I'd just like to say that, by removing any reference to "excessive punnishments for drugs" & Van Nguyen, you guys are bringing the trolls and vandals upon yourselves. The correct reaction when some pseudo-vandal posts a stupid paragraph is it delete it, but take the core of the complaint and provide a link to a wikipedia page which actually addresses that issue directly. In this way, you take the small contribution of the messmaker. If you don't do this, you just inspire more of them. JeffBurdges 21:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

As I see it, we already are mentioning it. Whether or not the punishment is excessive is point of a view - we may say, "it has been criticised as excessive by Amnesty International and whatnot", but we cannot say it indeed is excessive. We are an international port with a lot of international traffic, I don't consider a high capital punishment rate surprising. -- Natalinasmpf 03:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no justification for vandalism. Anyone is perfectly justified in removing text that flies in the face of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, such as the entertaining "indictment on civilization" text.

Also, no one has removed "excessive punishments". Singapore is in fact one of the few country articles on Wikipedia that mentions things like capital punishment and caning in its introduction section (unlike even Iran or North Korea), and yet no one is removing those.

As Mailer Diablo has said, we can work on how the page can be better revised once the vandals have left and the page is unlocked, especially the question of whether this article should provide a link to the Van Nguyen case. -- ran (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No one is talking about "justification for vandalism". Your making a straw man here because you have no good reason for keeping the "flavor of the month" victim of a miscarriage of justice out of the article. Wikis were supposed to be about finding creative and subtle solutions to vandalism, trolls, etc., if you forget that your supposed to be smarten then them, you won't be.

Iran & North Korea are not currently treated in an NPOV way either. NPOV means giving both sides, not giving fewer and fewer sides until one side is happy. BTW, Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a problem with getting both sides of the story out of Singapore, as their government is quite happy to make its case publicly. JeffBurdges 23:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Country / state articles are not collections of "flavours of the month". We do not name specific cases of capital punishment in general country / state articles like United States, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Virginia, Florida, People's Republic of China, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Pakistan, Egypt, or Bangladesh, because in-depth discussion about the death penalty is too specific for country / state articles, which are meant to be overviews only. Nor should we mention a "flavour of a month" simply to deflect a brief spell of vandalism. -- ran (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

And while we are at it, of coz the idea that this case should be highlighted for what is deemed as a "miscarriage of justice" is in itself disputable, and hardly NPOV. Mentioning it in the first paragraph is already unusual, considering plenty of other countries have the same sentencing for the same offence. Why do you need to push it further unless a cause is driving you to do so?--Huaiwei 02:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, whether or not Nguyen suffered a miscarriage of justice is a POV. There is a good case to say he deserved it, especially since he could have chosen another country to link to, and stay the hell away from us. I mean, carrying 26,000 doses worth of heroin (that 396 grams) is just asking for it...15 grams is already a lot, and usually only gangsters involved in organised crime carry that amount, but 25 times more than that is certainly particularly heinous. He wasn't just any drug trafficker but a big time drug trafficker. -- Natalinasmpf 03:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Argh! We don't even link the Human rights in the United States article from the United States of America article!! What are people supposed to use "What links here" everytime they read an article? Geez.. I'll go bitch about it. JeffBurdges 15:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, they can use the category function. I think what it is that the United States article itself has to be pretty compact - it's linked at the bottom. -- Natalinasmpf 16:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I had the same problem with wikipedia search. Now I use google search more often; you can specify wikipedia as the site domain: such as the query "United States human rights site:en.wikipedia.org" [1] it should get what you want pretty quickly. The category function is also helpful as Natalina suggest. --Vsion 22:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Some individuals are still looking to vent their anger over the execution of Van Nguyen by vandalizing this article. I think the article should be protected again on the day of Van Nguyen funderal so that we prevent it from happening. theboogeyman 17:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

To these individuals I adress, then.

Don't blame Singaporeans for Nguyen's death. We're just trying to live a happy life, k? =P

The execution hurt its friendly ties with Australia. It hurt Singapore economically and socially. It hurt its own name. It hurt its own standing in the world. It raised controversies, jibes, and all sorts of horrible criticisms from other nations. Just to make a stand for justice.

Not many countries will go that far to do the thing that they think is right. --Clockword

Singapore, an indictment on civilisation

This is a simplified summing up of Singapore that a contributor left on the Singapore article page. Unfortunately it has now been blocked, however i beleive that this should be given some airing at least on this discussion page as a form of protest against this country and its governments practices. I'm just now hearing the Singapore PM describing their policies as following the rule of law, anyone who had even the most basic understanding of this term would realise that the excepted definition of it is the exact opposite to mandatorily hanging someone. Anyway this is what the article should consist of, for a while anyway (as it is of course the truth)as a form of protest. Perhaps in hope of shaming the country into changing its ways, although to date the country has not demonstrated that its capable of such action. it of course would take civility, morals, intelligence and most of all courage, all attributes Singapore seems to be most certainly lacking (especially courage). This is what should be on the page: Singapore is an undemocratic, uncivilised, boring nation that has no sense of justice. Singapore is basically, an offshoot of China, or as former Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam described, a rogue Chinese port, although to be fair to China it should be said that, Singapore's moral and social standards are somewhat lower. Its main purpose is essentially being conveniently located refuelling point between Australia and Europe, with most travellers wanting to stopover there for as little time as possible. Singapore is not respected by any western countries, most of whom rightly regard the country as being barbaric, lacking morals and having policies that suggest a lack of intelligence, education and general civillity. Therefor most view Singapore, in social terms as belonging to the third world and certainly not being on the same level as other western world nations. The government of Singapore are obviously unintelligent, uneducated,illogical, unelected people of an aninimalistic nature and subsequently are treated with contempt, disrespect and pity by other governments from the western world and other countries that are also more civilised than Singapore.

A major regret for Australia and it's fellow World War 2 allies is that Singapore may as well have been left to the Japanese after the war, as even the japanese militaristic wartime government would have been better than the current Singapore administration which is basically just a model of nepotism and inbreeding.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore"

The two comments in the edit summary go further to demonstrate my point. It is not not only in relation to one person, but all those hung in your country. Singapore has in fact got the highest rate of hangings, or any form of capital punishment for that matter, than anywhere else in the world per capita. Having a mandatory death penalty is not in line with the rule of law or justice in any way. As to the point about narcotics funding terroism, its completely not the point. Im certainly not arguing what he did was not wrong, but his conviction atumoatically attracted the death sentence, with no discretion being able to be applied by the judege (completely out of line with the rule of law), despite the fact that there were mitigating circumstances, eg he gave his full co-operation. Further, the punishment was massively disproportionate to his crime. People who recieve the death penalty for murder have actually killed someone, whilst it can be argued that the drugs may have cost lives, there is no direct proof of this, and more importantly his drugs nver even hit the street, so non one sufferred, this is akin to hanging someone not for attempted murder, but attempted manslaughter, a crime that doesn't even exist because it is not logical. the argument that this policy is somehow a detterent is also extremely flawed, your drug use rates are no lower than (an in some cases higher) than other countries such as the USA and Australia. In fact singapore has a very strong reputation internationally as being associated with druglords anf the drug trade.

Yor removal of comments like mine show that you either beleive in what your government has doen, which would be a very sad indictment on yourselves personally, or yu are in fact ashamed of yourcountries actions. In sincerely hope it is the latter.

• The latter. And you should understand our current SGpedian's plight of "Damn if we do, damn if we don't". And you are fortunate to write such prose and your fellow countrymen making threats without consquence, if you do the same in Singapore soil you can expect officers from the Internal Security Department to come knocking at your doorstep the next day. - Mailer Diablo 15:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Removal of comments? Ironic. You removed my comment. Anyhow, in response, your criticism is evidently spiteful, not constructive - which is the best way to go around making a difference in protest. You know what? We are a sovereign country. We are a republic, with a tired political system yes, but we still have a lot say over our own laws, and we govern ourselves. If Lee Hsien Loong suddenly tried to run a law to bypass elections, I have no doubt democracy would prevail. Your so called "changes" are obviously hyperbole, do see WP:POINT, and they are obviously not true. Exaggerated yes, holding some semblance of truth yes, but not true. Many first world countries have a death penalty for serious charges, and we did give Nguyen a fair trial. The United States in dealing with suspects, on the other hand...you obviously don't get the potential for drugs to ruin things here, where Singapore, being a city-state with no natural resources, cannot allow people to run amok with drugs, and must be very spartan in this respect. Attempted manslaughter yes, but it poses such a threat to economic stability and stability of the country that I call it treason. -- Natalinasmpf 15:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• To anons: Wikipedia does not support a policy of vandalizing country articles at every and any controversy. If you wish to complain about current events, please do so elsewhere. -- ran (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• The introduction seems pretty civil, until I came to the bolded text. If it was the bold text you are attempting to add, then I would think it highly likely that it will be removed even by those who personally disapprove of capital punishment. I dont have the energy to read the entire text, but it is evident the same old points are being raised yet again, even thou they have been corrected before. The so-called "full co-operation" he gave to the government was simply false, and the "help" he wanted to give was of limited value. Lee Kuan Yew recently described the Australian press as "colourful", and for good reason. Sensationalisation seems to take precedence over fact, and I am left wondering just what kind of role the Australian media think they play. All in all, it just boils down to some people's opposition to capital punishment, and the believe that drug trafficking does not justify the sentencing, and both points are views which are difficult to sway for people on both sides of the fence. Anything new you would like to discuss here? That the United States is also an indictment on civilisation?--Huaiwei 17:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Rather than sensationalizing the plight of one family, why doesn't the Australian media sensationalize the plights of the hundreds, if not thousands of families that have been shattered by heroin use in Australia?

It sounds like a moral panic.--218.102.79.235 03:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding more recent stats, but here: [2]. In 1998, more than 600 Australians died from heroin overdoses. In contrast, the 2002 Bali bombing, "Australia's 911", killed 89 Australians; the 2005 Bali bombings killed 4 Australians. Also note that Nguyen knew fully well what he was doing; he went and did it anyways.

Let's say that instead of a drug trafficker, the convicted were a 2002 Bali bomber, with Australian citizenship, who tried but failed to detonate his bomb in a crowd of Australian tourists. Would the Australian media have fixated on whether this aforementioned convicted bomber were allowed to hug his mother?

Singapore is helping to protect Australian lives, and this is what Singapore gets. -- ran (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you apply to be the executioner? It is absurd that Singaporeans want executions while nobody willing to be the hangman - ain't Singoporean blood thirsty? Instead of simply hang Nguyen, hang, drawn and quartering him would even gartner more support from Singapore electorates, with his quartered body should be displayed at Orchid Road, Parliament House, Merlion with his head displayed at Changi Airport's passport control as deterrent. Any volunteers? --218.102.79.235 03:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Why would Singaporeans be considered bloodthirsty if they believe the death penalty can help reduce crime rates, but dosent want to have any direct role in it themselves? Its the typical NIMBY attitude, and Singaporeans are generally content letting the state deal with such things themselves. Bloodthirsty? Meanwhile, hang, drawn and quartering him sounds pretty interesting. Do you do that in Australia as an example for us to follow?--Huaiwei 06:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Protect Australian lives? You murderers cannot cope with freedom- hell, you fine people for chewing gum and execute people instead of attempting to rehabilitate them. Your rationale and your country is sick.--69.231.237.71 04:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course the death penalty is saving Australian lives, why do you think 47% Austrialians support the execution [3]. Because hundreds of Australians die each year of drug abuse and millions of lives are affected. [4]. Why do you think John Howard didn't apply further diplomatic pressure? Because he is pragmatic and know the real consequences. Afghanistan has drastically increased its heroin production and the drug problem is becoming worse. What did the occupying forces from western countries, including Australians, in Afghanistan do to stop it? Singapore is doing its best at its borders to stop the trafficking, hope other countries are not just standing and watching. --Vsion 04:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Execute people instead of attempting to rehabilitate them? Makes me wonder why Singapore needs the courts then, since we might as well just send everyone to the gallows instead of wasting so much taxpayers money on trying them? No rebabilitation, you say? So what in the world are Drug Rehabilitation Centres doing in Singapore? To be staffed by individuals like yourself?--Huaiwei 06:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

For Christ's sake! Do you, unknown person, think your statement was deleted simply because it seemed anti-Singapore? Let me tell you some of the weaknesses in your argument: You fail to provide objectivity. Secondary school students are all educated in backing up their arguments with evidence. Tell me, how are we "undemocratic", "uncivilised", "boring", "barbaric", "lacking morals", "having policies that suggest a lack of intelligence, education and general civillity". You are labelling Singapore with adjectives of hate of a superlative degree and believe that this is the global opinion. Is the government "obviously unintelligent, uneducated,illogical, unelected people of an aninimalistic nature and subsequently are treated with contempt, disrespect and pity by other governments from the western world and other countries that are also more civilised than Singapore" simply because you say so? If you are that confident that your personal opinion likewise represents that of everyone else, why not prove it? Another failure of your arguments is concerning the law on chewing gum. May I clarify, we do not fine people for chewing gum. We only fine people for selling it. This is to limit the amount of gum in Singapore, thus preventing public nuisances such as the sticking of gum onto surfaces frequently used, such as elevator buttons, door handles, etc. "the argument that this policy is somehow a detterent is also extremely flawed, your drug use rates are no lower than (an in some cases higher) than other countries such as the USA and Australia. In fact singapore has a very strong reputation internationally as being associated with druglords anf the drug trade." Hah, will I point out to you that drug usage in USA and Australia is far higher per capita? Singapore has NOT any reputation to begin with concerning druglords, and I suppose this is a label you are blindly throwing at us just to denounce us. Will anyone kindly talk to this guy/girl and tell him where his so-called contributions should be at? Why are you being unreasonable in your judgement on us and OBVIOUSLY mislabelling us. Do you think you are that refined? If you are, why don't you argue better? Unless you are the one of an animalistic nature, of course...--Ariedartin 09:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Point 1: "Therefor most view Singapore, in social terms as belonging to the third world and certainly not being on the same level as other western world nations." What proof do you have of that? Arguments without evidence are not arguments at all, in this case they are just biased statements without proof to back them up.

Point 2: "Having a mandatory death penalty is not in line with the rule of law or justice in any way." We, as a sovereign state, and an independent nation, have our own laws. Whatever country you are from has different laws. and your statement does NOT define "the rule of law or justice" - how do you prove that it is "not in line"?

Point 3: "...and more importantly his drugs nver even hit the street, so non one sufferred, this is akin to hanging someone not for attempted murder, but attempted manslaughter, a crime that doesn't even exist because it is not logical." If you are found threatening someone with a knife, whether for fun or for real, the police will take you into custody. Why? BECAUSE THE ACTION IS THERE, BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT THE INTENTION IS THERE. If you hold a gun to someone's head, the police WILL take you into custody. Why? again, BECAUSE THE ACTION IS THERE, BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT THE INTENTION IS THERE. No one HAS suffered, true, but if we did not put him in custody, people WOULD suffer. The ACTION is there. If there is evidence that you are planning to murder someone, you will be put into custody. You HAVE PLANNED to kill someone, whether you have done it or not is NOT the point.

"...with most travellers wanting to stopover there for as little time as possible. Singapore is not respected by any western countries, most of whom rightly regard the country as being barbaric, lacking morals and having policies that suggest a lack of intelligence, education and general civillity."

1) Can you prove that "with most travellers wanting to stopover there for as little time as possible" is the TRUTH?

2) If Singapore is not respected by any Western Countries, then WHY THE HELL DOES SINGAPORE EVEN HOLD TRADE TALKS WITH THEM? WHY ARE THERE SINGAPOREAN EMBASSIES OVERSEAS? WHY ARE THE AMERICANS USING SINGAPOREAN TEXTS IN THEIR SCHOOLS? HUH?! TELL ME THAT! Obviously, you are not using your brain.

Eerie content premonition

How was it that I knew, before I even visited it, that the Wikipedia entry on Singapore would be controlled by the Singapore government's agents and sympathisers? Wulfilia 18:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia controlled by neither the government of Singapore nor the Australian media. If you have any suggestions for how Singapore-related articles may be improved, please make them, instead of making accusations about Singaporean Wikipedians that you yourself know to be untrue. Wikipedia is not a venue for flame wars. -- ran (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs an ability to monitor IP address ranges. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would love to be notified whenever someone with a Singapore IP address modified the article. JeffBurdges 21:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

As I see it, it seems that Singaporeans would be one of the more people who would have information on the subject, but you seem to treat such edits with suspicion. Furthermore, most of the content comes from non-anonymous editors. Much of the content is simply a neutral reflection, and that yes, one cannot deny we're doing well in certain things, as much as some warhawk Australians might not to admit. You realise that many of the information is in fact, a criticism of our country, especially when we document activism and government. -- Natalinasmpf 02:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Singaporeans dont seem to have it good. When we speak up for the government or its policies, it is considered a reflection of how dominating and influential the government is. When we speak up against it, it is considered "normal", and should be encouraged. So in other words, Singaporeans dont have the liberty of speech to even say one thing good about their government without being branded as a government lackey or agent by open-speech advocates. So for all the positive things this government has done, they do not deserve any praise, for hawkish foreigners apparantly think these are secondary compared to the "human rights abuses" on one of their own citizens.

Anyhow, you dont need much "investigations into IP ranges" just to see who has been contributing to this page. As Natalin mentioned, most major Singaporean contributors are doing so with a registered username. Any other anonymous contributor has their IP clearly displayed. Plenty of people would love to be notified when Singaporeans edit this page. Well...says who? Who are these folks, if any? How is it no one have actively shown he cares after month and months of contributions to this page, most of which are Singaporeans or who are familiar with the country to give a more level-headed commentary on it?--Huaiwei 03:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of the recent vandalism came from Australia and none from Singapore, so why would anyone want to watch for edits from Singaporean IP's in particular? Though personally, I don't support focusing upon IP addresses from any particular country, since vandals can attack Wikipedia from anywhere in the world. -- ran (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

double standards?

I see a breakdown of the different types of Malay identities, the different Indian nationalities, the breakdown of the various Chinese dialects spoken. So why is the part about the different Eurasian european ethnicities being edit out? Is it irrelevant?

Is it? Show me a diff. -- Natalinasmpf 15:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Are they significant enough in number to show a breakdown?--Huaiwei 18:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying when one day the Chinese are insignificant in number, there shouldn't be a breakdown for them too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) .

content list for this talk page

I'm wondering why, since we already have so many sections, that this talk page doesn't seem to have a content list like all the others. Where did it go? -- Natalinasmpf 03:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the {{todo}} template is blocking it somehow. -- ran (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It went awol for a while, I think it's back now. :D --Vsion 06:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

lol!--Huaiwei 06:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

reword, please

After heated ideological conflict developed between the state government formed by PAP and the Federal government in Kuala Lumpur, Singapore was expelled from the federation on August 7, 1965.

This sentence disagrees with other articles that place the date of withdrawal on August 9. My understanding is that the Malay head of state told Singapore to get lost on the 7th, but that his remarks had no official capacity. Would someone who understands the situation correct this? SchmuckyTheCat 19:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The separation agreement was signed on August 7th. On August 9th, the Malaysian Parliament unanimously voted to expel Singapore, making the separation de jure. -- Natalinasmpf 19:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The whole incident sounds like a fascinating story that deservices its own article. SchmuckyTheCat 19:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

We have PAP-UMNO relations ... there's a lot to expand on, no doubt. One day I'll go to the NLB and get some books I can cite to edit in more details. -- Natalinasmpf 20:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting it certainly is. We dont have that many countries gaining independence unwillingly, and willingly thrown out by another country, does it? :D Is Independence of Singapore needed anytime soon?--Huaiwei 12:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The separation agreement was signed on August 7th. The separation was made official on the 9th.220.255.112.79 02:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The moral of this story is...

Get to know the laws of the country you plan to visit.Then if you Choose to break those laws then you Choose to accept the punishment. Never carry or tranport luggage or packages for strangers and for the love of god just obey the law.If you want to use drugs, do not use them in Singapore,just stay at home. Singapore may have harsh laws and you may be right to say their draconian,but you'll still be dead. I liken it to useing a marked pedestrian crossing,notlooking both ways before you cross,then getting hit dy a car. Sure, you may have been in the right,however your dead as well.

The introduction

"Practices such as the restrictions on chewing gum, fines for littering and spitting, censorship laws and control on the press have led some to label Singapore a "nanny state". The state has a very strict judicial system dubbed to be favourable to the state and its aims. Capital punishment is meted out on certain offenses like drug trafficking and murder. The strict judicial system has been cited as a reason as to the safe streets and low crime rate in the country.

Two years of mandatory national service is required for able-bodied males upon reaching the age of 18. Even though it has not been engaged in any military conflict as of yet, the Singapore Armed Forces, maintains a 100,000-strong active force and 350,000-strong reserve force while purchasing a vast majority of military equipment from Israel and the United States. Singapore actively participates in United Nations peacekeeping missions and has deployed peacekeeping troops to a range of many nations, including Iraq."

The introduction has two paragraphs about stereotypes and military (+ paragraphs about history and malaysia relationship, which might be ok, altough i would prefer as brief introduction as possible), and none or little about culture, economy, demographics, transport, urban planning, etc. Am I the only one who thinks focusing on stereotypes and military is seriously POV? The introduction should summarize all aspects balanced, or, just keep the first paragraph and possibly a few neutral words about location, dense living and economy as with most country/city articles. I shortened it twice, but it was reverted without any argument.Cathymer 16:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've revised the introduction. How is it now? -- Natalinasmpf 21:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems good, thanks! Cathymer 22:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Extensive Welfare System?

Presently, Singapore can be politically analysed as a democratic socialist country and has an extensive welfare system, although de facto it has a dominant-party system.

We have an extensive welfare system? I know we have no unemployment monetary benefits, no disability monetary benefits, no eldery monetary benefits. (monetary benefits = receiving money from the govt like unemployment claims in developed countries like Australia and the USA)

Wasn't there cases back then where poor families who couldn't scrap up enough money to pay for water and electricity bills were featured on the news, and our govt made a statement like "PUB (public utility board) not running a charity"? *PUB = govt linked monopoly on all public utilities in singapore. They are the only water and electricity provider in the country.

Don't worry, I'm not looking for a flame war nor am I a "govt lackey" lol. I just want to make this wiki entry as accurate as possible. I think it is pretty good that we do not face wars, terror attacks, famine or natural disasters in Singapore. Though crime rate is considerably high (my low is at zero :P), its much harder to get killed or raped here than say in the States.

Anyone with knowledge and verifiable sources regarding our "extensive welfare system" please enlightened. 165.21.154.111 07:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, how many of those "welfare" countries have a Central Provident Fund, New Singapore Shares and Community Development Councils? :D--Huaiwei 08:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI CPF and Singapore Shares are not considered "welfare". In particular CPF has its criticism but to either criticise it or praise it here would be too POV. All "welfare" countries happen to have an equivalenet of Community Development Council. But whether such organisation is effective in SG or abroad is also too POV to be discussed. Likewise, Britain had child benefits that pay about SG$30-40 a week from the day your child is born to the day he turn 18. But to "complain" that we are inferior because we don't have this kind of child benefit would be too POV. 165.21.154.116 07:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That the CPF and Singapore Shares arent considered welfare is a personal viewpoint in my opinion. Singapore's CPF is akin to a much more comprehensive pension fund. The Singapore Shares targets the needy in Singapore, offering them cash payouts investment-style. Singapore has the Edusave Scheme, helping to pay for children's education, along with a basket of "perks" offered with the recent baby-bonus thing (and which I didnt really pay much attention to). Welfare states may offer free medical threatment, but a recent case in the UK (involving SM Lee's wife?) demonstrated horrid medical standards as a result, and was orchestrated into a "praise" of Singapore's partial-subsidy system. It is thus difficult to claim that Singapore dosent have an extensive welfare system per se simply by comparing with the welfare states of Europe and Australia, for eg.--Huaiwei 06:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The MCYS gives Baby Bonus to encourage married couples to have more children. We have a lot of welfare here, Edusave, Baby Bonus, CDC, Town Council welfare scheme, school financial assistance in some schools. Straits Times School Pocket Money fund is another example. There are so much welfare in Singapore. There is Medisave to pay for some hospital stuff. --Terence Ong ^Talk 07:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Welfare isn't necessarily handouts, just to clarify. There are extensive discounts for low-income earners. For example, if your income is below a certain level, one would only have to pay twenty one dollars for many services at government hospitals (NUH, SGH, etc.) where it would normally cost eighty dollarsor more each. Discounts for everything. -- Natalinasmpf 23:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a disagreement here over the meaning of "extensive welfare". In many (western) countries, when they refer to "welfare state" the biggest tickets are free healthcare and unemployment benefits, as the anon suggested, and they eat up a large chunk of the government expenditure in welfare countries. Hence describing it as "Extensive Welfare System" here without further elaboration may lead to some misunderstanding. Singapore government has always advocate a "no free lunch" approach. Healthcare is based on co-payment, hence responsibility rests primarily on the individuals and immediate kins rather than the State. Unemployment benefits for non-disabled persons are very little and not guaranteed, and won't sustain a reasonable lifestyle. Instead, the govt. spend alot on education, aiming to give each person about-equal schooling opportunity. I'm not familiar with the CDC matters, but I don't think these are big expenditure items. So, when comparing with other countries in terms of govt. expenditure on welfare, I feel that Singapore is "selective" rather than "extensive" when it comes to welfare. Welfare is very costly. For example, in Swedish Budget, there is a 30% expenditure item on "Welfare", and you don't find it in the Singapore budget [5]. This is partly to keep the tax rates at low levels (20-22%, compared to 45+% usually required in welfare states) and this helps to sustain economic growth. Again, this is about semantics, "extensive" is abit vague. --Vsion 08:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

But it's still welfare. This is played out through discounts, subsidies, etc. not neessarily handouts - there are no unemployment benefits. Can I reinstate it back in? -- Natalinasmpf 23:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, but it doesn't sound right to me for the reasons I gave above. To LKY, "welfare" is actually quite a "dirty" word; and in the past PUB did turn off people's utility supplies when the bills weren't paid. Maybe things are different now after 14 years of GCT's rule. But I still feel that the main priorities of policy makers are (1) economic progress and (2) security. Social welfare is not a high priority, compared to several other countries. This is reflected in the govt. budget structure, policies, and statements. In Lee Hsien Loong's national day rally, this is what he said:

"... But the basic principle which we apply in helping low-income Singaporeans, which has worked well for us and, we must keep it, is we go for "workfare", not welfare. That means, if you work, if you're prepared to help yourself, if you're going to strive, I will help you to succeed. But if you sit back and you say, "Please do something for me and the more you do for me, the less I need to do for myself", then I think we cannot do that, because that way is perdition, is a disaster for the individual, he's demoralised. It's disaster for the country. Instead of going to create wealth, you're sitting back and expecting it to fall from heaven. Cannot be done."

Like his father, he rejected using the word "welfare" to describe his policy. --Vsion 07:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Weasel Words

As of 30/12/05 there are weasel words, some in passive voice, found within this article ("what many consider to be", "is considered" etc.), marring its validity and verifiability. On top of that, a light inspection yielded some typographical and grammatical errors as well. I would appreciate a bit of help cleaning this thing up. DarthOctopus 08:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I give you the honour to cleanup the article. Feel free to make any edits. --Terence Ong ^Talk 08:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Mostly cleaned up now. DarthOctopus 08:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

bunker

Does the sentence "She is also the world's biggest bunkering hub with 23.6 million tonnes of bunkers sold in 2004." make much sense? Maybe addind a line saying what is a bunker (?)

Alright then. DarthOctopus 08:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

The picture of Changi airport really sucks. It could be any airport anywhere - nothing really special. Someone should delete it. It's just a stupid picture of another airport. Who cares? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.156.6.68 (talk • contribs).

Changed the airport picture, as well as the one of the MRT.--Huaiwei 17:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Lion?

Do we know for sure that there were lions in this area in historic times? When did they disappear? What species or subspecies were they? Where are the nearer wild lions now?

No, there were no lions, which is one of the mysteries of our name.--202.156.6.54 15:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Folklore tells of Sang Nila Utama seeing a lion; however, since there were no lions, it has been rumoured that he saw a tiger and mistook it for a lion.

Pura

Is pura a Malay word, or a pure Sanskrit word? Any experts here? --Sengkang 01:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a Malay word. It is not Sanskrit word--Kingykongy

I beg to differ. It is indeed a Malay word, but Malay has borrowed it from Sanskrit. The article itself refers to bartleby.com, however, really authoritative sources like Turnbull (1996) confirm it. Furthermore, the Malay language article gives (or gave, rather) a number of lexical items of Sanskrit origin. JREL (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

I'm not going to remove this article from the GA nominations list yet, but a couple of points that I think should be addressed:

• The lead is huge- see WP:LEAD for guidelines
• Lack of inline citations for numbers (In 2003, governmental expenditures on national security and foreign relations totalled S$9,248.9 million, 48% of total expenditures for that year) and statements (Singapore's cuisine is the most general attraction for tourists).
• Per WP:MoS, only proper nouns in headings should be capatalized.

Thanks, AndyZ 23:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Singapore Wikipedians are busy at the moment. You may like to do some cleanup, feel free to do so. This is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, so please do improve the article. --Terence Ong 13:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Terence's right - I personally would love to get the in-line up and perhaps try FAC again, but time constrains at the moment means I can't do much for now. - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

City

According to the infobox of the article, the capital and the largest city is Singapore. I'd like to know if it's true that the Singaporean government has defined the entirety of itself as one city, and this city as its capital? Was the city charter granted by the Queen King in the 1950s granted to the entirety of the modern state of Singapore? Thanks. — Instantnood 21:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC) (modified 20:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

Well, Singapore is a city-state, which basically means the whole country is one city, although we also call the Central Business District "city". The general impression is that Singapore is ONE city, as it has a well-defined central area surrounded by suburbs. -- splot 07:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about impression or the definition of city as in the study of geography, but official and legal designation/recognition. Does the Singaporean government incorporate the entirety of its territory as a city? Or was the royal charter granted by the King in 1951 granted to the entirety of the territory of the modern state of Singapore? If not, then in what way does the city in that sense exist? And how is its capital defined? — Instantnood 20:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Since there was a historical distinction between the city and the island before independence, ie. the CBD/Central Area/Downtown Core (as they evolved) would be called "Singapore City", and perhaps Changi was treated as a separate town, but as all the areas expanded, and independence achieved naturally de facto there was no distinction. But I think de jure there is a distinction, but perhaps it was cast out over the past few decades. I don't think a capital is defined in the constitution. Recognition only goes so far as to the nation itself, the planning areas, and the constituency. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

So who received the city charter? Part of the modern state of Singapore, or the entirety of the modern state of Singapore? If it's the former, does it still legally exists? If not, why? If its capital is not defined in the constitution, how and where is it defined? Thanks. — Instantnood 18:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't know what you are looking for, Republic of Singapore granting the city charter to the City of Singapore? For fun?! Btw, Singapore is only 40km wide and it has only one goverment; these is no such thing as local municipalities in Singapore, only town councils with very limited autonomy and responsibility. To clarify, there is only one government, one legislative body, one election (still is), one taxation, and one authority or ministry for each department of law enforcement, utility, telecomm, education, land, housing, transport, etc. As far as I can remember, this has always been the case since 1965. What happened before that I don't remember but basically irrelevant; after 1965, a city charter is unnecessary. --Vsion 19:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In that case, if the Singaporean government has not defined the entirety of itself as a city, then there's basically no city in Singapore, and the entirety of Singapore, legally speaking, is not a city, am I right? As far as I know, pre-1965 laws are still valid, unless amended or repealed. If the royal charter in 1951 wasn't repealed or amended, it's still valid, and the place with the charter granted is still a city. Re: " Republic of Singapore granting the city charter to the City of Singapore? For fun?! Btw, Singapore is only 40km wide " - Whether it's 40km wide or 700km² in size is irrelevant. Cities like Taipei or Chicago covers only the centre of the metropolitan area. Westminster and the City of London (the Square Mile) are also cities. Beverly Hills and West Hollywooed are also cities, although they're enclaves within the city of Los Angeles. — Instantnood 08:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand why on earth does the Singaporean government want to grant a city charter to itself? Of course the "royal charter of 1951" (or whatever it is) was repealed! At least three times over in fact: declaration of self-government in 1959, declaration of independence through Malaysia in 1963, and the Declaration of Independence in 1965. For a city which is also an independent state, the so called "city charter" is superceded by what is known as the "Constitution". --Vsion 09:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What was "repealed" was Singapore's statuses as a crown colony ("repealed" in 1963) and as a state of Malaysia (in 1965). Was the royal charter, i.e. the city status, granted to the entirety of the then crown colony of Singapore in 1951, or only part of it? If it was granted to part of Singapore, neither declaration of self-government nor declaration of independence would have repealed the city charter. — Instantnood 09:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the 1951 document, never read it nor heard of it. After 1965, Singapore is a sovereign state and is free to govern itself in a way as it wishes. As I wrote earlier, there is only one government and the city and the state is identical, there is no need for the city-charter because there is already a Constitution. The govt. has no wish to create a new level of autonomous administrative district. The governemnt, the people, and many foreign observers, have always refer to the state as a city-state, and using this term (as defined in [6]) is correct. Please don't assert your own definition, and create a naming issue out of nothing. --Vsion 21:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

With no legal and/or administrative designation, no incorporation, no charter, in what way is it legally and/or administratively a city? (Though I know it is, geographically, an urbanised area.) — Instantnood 21:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You are totally confused by what is an incorporation. Incorporation is to grant a significant amount of autonomy to a district, such that it (a city, etc), can have it own governing council, election, taxation, police force, ultility board, etc. Singapore already has all these. Why does it want to decree an incorporation on itself. Please study what is an incorpration first. --Vsion 21:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There's such thing as unitary authority. Since Singapore does not define any part of itself as city, if it does not define the entirety of itself to be a city, no city exists. — Instantnood 21:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by unitary authority? Please explain. Singapore and others have always refer it as a city-state. In the Constitution, of course it use the word "State" instead of "city", but that doesn't mean it is not a city. Please use the common definition of "city-state" [7], not your pov definition; are you confusing it with some chinese translation or something? --Vsion 22:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What to do with Chinese translation? There's an article on Wikipedia about unitary authority. Nobody disputes the fact that Singapore is a city-state, and is, of course, a city, in the sense that it's an urban area. It's not, legally and administratively speaking, a city however. — Instantnood 22:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we agree that Singapore is a city-state. Have any other city-states incorporate itself or write a city-charter in addtion to its Consitution? I don't know the answer, but to me it seems unnecessary why any city-state (and Singapore) would do that, hence my objection. Please enlighten. --Vsion 20:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Monaco, for instance, has a Communal Council responsible for the principality's local affairs, besides the National Council. It's true and indisputable that Singapore is geographically an urbanised area, i.e. a city according to some definitions, but administratively and legally speaking, it's not designated a city. — Instantnood 14:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Singapore did in the past have a Municipal Council (renamed City Council in 1951) and a Rural Board [8] [9]. They were abolished in 1965 or later [10]. Other relevant information: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. Was the City between 1951 and the abolishment of its council the capital of the crown colony, and from 1963 the Malaysian state? Did the Singaporean government define the entirety of the sovereign state as a city and the capital after it abolished the City Council and the Rural Board? — Instantnood 16:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Seems like nobody is interested with this part of history of Singapore. Did you know the water trade agreement was signed between the City Council of the City of Singapore and the State of Johore? Did you know the rest of the crown colony, other than the City of Singapore, had a Singapore Rural Board? — Instantnood 22:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are making. But the infor. you provide does show that Singapore is administratively run as a city. The role of city council in the past is taken over by the current government. Other level of administration no longer exist. This is the fact today, and describing it as "city-state", is appropriate and sufficient. --Vsion 01:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an actual fact the power of the former city council was taken over by the government. Yet nobody inherited the city charter, and therefore, nothing is carrying on the city status. — Instantnood 19:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

comparing Singapore with western countries

- Some information on Singapore: [17], [18][19], [20]

- Weak democracy, dubious elections, weak media freedom, and fascism in the United States: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]

- Corruption in the US political system: [34], [35], [36], [37]

Jack, 10 April 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.154.131.201 (talk • contribs). (Links centralised here, please do not paste the same links multiple times in different sections of a page Kimchi.sg | talk 23:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC))

Is Singapore considered a First world country?

I have always wondered whether Singapore is considered a First World nation by the international community. Recently, it had been written in the Straits Times that Singapore is NOT considered a First world country but it is a developed nation. Does anyone has any clarification about this? What is the official stand? Surely, this nation is not a third world country and this nation is highly affluent. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"First world" does not have anything to do with the state of development although it might affect the economy. The terms are now outdated because the Cold War has ended. "First world" were the nations under the sphere of influence of NATO and the United States, "second world" were the nations under the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union, and "third world" nations which had loyalties to neither Soviet Union nor the United States. It is inaccurate at describing economic development, although sometimes they correlate. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Such distinctions are arbitrary. No country is "inherently" classified just as continents are not necessarily endemic to a world (see Myth of Continents)

About adding time and latitude info

The below code is based upon the Tokyo article which allows you to see the coordinates and the current time in singapore. This is useful if people would want to know the current time in singapore. I would suggest adding it to the article but it would be allright if this isn't added in the end.
<span id="coordinates" class="plainlinksneverexpand"> [[Geographic coordinate system|Coordinates]]: {{coor dm|1|17|N|103|51|E|type:city}} Current time in Singapore: {{CurrentTimeIn|UsualDifferenceFromUTCForThisLocation=8|DSTAdjustment=0}} </span>
--fnfd 22:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Archaeology

Archaeology in Singapore wikilink should be integrated into the article or deleted. My opinion anyways... - Tutmosis 23:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone linked it from the history section. Kimchi.sg 10:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Literacy rate

This article puts it at 98%, but Education in Singapore suggests it is 94.6%. We also need a citation for the explanation of the cause of illiteracy. Johnleemk | Talk 18:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

98% is hard to believe. --Vsion 18:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

95%, sourced. - Mailer Diablo 19:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Merging back refs

We've found quite a lot of references in the process, so when we get this done, we should also update the subpages. ;-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive

Not on Singapore per se but related, History of Southeast Asia is currently a nominee for Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please support the nominee by voting for it! __earth ^(Talk) 03:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)