Talk:Singapore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Singapore has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Article Milestones Date Process Result January 18, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted February 26, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 25, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 12, 2005 Peer review Reviewed March 20, 2006 Good article nominee Listed April 24, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 19, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current Status: Good article (countries)

Welcome! This talkpage is to discuss the article Singapore only. Past discussions can be found within this archive. For discussion regarding Singapore-related articles and issues, please visit the talkpage of the SGpedians' notice board. Enjoy! =)

	Singapore is part of SGpedians' Resources An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore. To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is supported by the Southeast Asia WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	To-do list:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Improvement of Singapore article Mention urban planning and its significance and how land use and density is distributed and tie in with rest of content To include a section on Singapore Science & Technology Development of Singapore's sub-pages More detail on to South Indian Hindu empires (e.g. the Majpahit) that preceded the Malay Sultanates and influenced the course of history and culture for Malaya and Singapore. Expand and improve Government of Singapore (moving less prominent material from Politics of Singapore)which tends to come across as personal and subjective, and create a section to be integrated into the Singapore article and tied in with rest of content More balanced "treatment" (or coverage) of all races and religions rather than a centrism which focuses on one more than the others. More insight into colonial era British defence forces, including the Singapore Volunteer Corps, the Scottish regiment, the British Navy presence, the various batteries posted all over the island. Built in 1835, the Church of St Gregory the Illuminator was consecrated on 26 March 1836. For over 165 years, St Gregory’s Church has bonded the Armenian community of Singapore and helped preserve its identity. Reference http://www.amassia.com.au/church.htm Review & Revision, FAC Process Bring over references from subpages. Others as appropriate.

This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Singapore, or visit the project page for more details. A This article has been rated as A-Class on its quality.

	This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Cities on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Singapore is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Geography.

Archives
Archive 1
Archive 2

Contents 1 More nonsense 2 Nonsense 3 excessive fotos 4 Protection 5 Telugu TV Channels 6 Democracy 7 Why move it? 8 government-linked 9 Demographics 10 Singaporean Cuisine 11 Why are there scare quotes here? 12 This article was quoted in a local Saipan daily 13 Bonny Hicks 14 Why delete so much content of economy section???? 15 Why delete so much content of economy section???? 16 UDI

[edit] More nonsense

'The main island was a fishing village sparsely populated by indigenous Malays and Orang Lauts when it was colonized by the British Empire in 1819.

It seems implausible to me that a 40km long island was just one village in the 19th century. Even today, with 4+ million people, Singapore has some empty areas.

==Establishment in Cyberspace==

PAP moves to counter criticism of party, Govt in cyberspace Li Xueying, 3 February 2007 Straits Times (c) 2007 Singapore Press Holdings Limited

THE People's Action Party (PAP) is mounting a quiet counter-insurgency against its online critics. It has members going into Internet forums and blogs to rebut anti-establishment views and putting up postings anonymously. Sources told The Straits Times the initiative is driven by two sub-committees of the PAP's 'new media' committee chaired by Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen. One sub-committee, co-headed by Minister of State (Education) Lui Tuck Yew and Hong Kah GRC MP Zaqy Mohamad, strategises the campaign. The other is led by Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Baey Yam Keng and Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP Josephine Teo. Called the 'new media capabilities group', it executes the strategies. Both were set up after last year's General Election. Aside from politicians, some 20 IT-savvy party activists are also involved. When contacted, Mr Baey declined to give details of the group's activities, but he outlined the broad principles of the initiative. It was necessary for the PAP to have a voice in cyberspace as there were few in the online community who were pro-establishment, he said. 203.117.143.29 00:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Updated at People's Action Party. Apparently, this "quiet counter-insurgency" is generating some noise. :D--Vsion 02:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense

When Singapore acquired independence, having few natural resources, it was sociopolitically volatile and economically undeveloped.

Lack of natural resources does not cause "sociopolitical volatility". Singapore did not "acquire" independence: it was expelled from the Federation of Malaysia. And it was not economically undeveloped: even then, Singapore was one of Asia's major trading ports. 203.117.143.29 02:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] excessive fotos

don't you think this topic putting too many photos? plus what you put are mainly unrelated photos. Please no more hard SELL70.52.74.204 00:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

to the user Rifleman 82, would you please explain to me why do you like to revert these photos that are not related to the topic of economy? thank you very much! 70.55.135.115 01:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

To the IP address(es), care to explain "why" those photos are 'not' related to the economy? Perhaps if you have bothered to give your reasonings those reverts need not have happened. Nic tan33 01:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that these photos are not related to the topic of economy. These photos I removed are basically good for the topic of tourism of Singapore. 70.55.135.115 02:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Is tourism unrelated to the economy?--Huaiwei 13:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Due to edit warring, I've protected the page. Folks, please discuss the reasons for photos or removing them. (And, 70.55.135.xxx, your explanation above is not good enough. Please make a good faith effort to discuss.) --Nlu (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello? thanks for giving me to explain. The photos I rm is around 300X. It is quite big and I resized the photos. I wrote down on edit summary and discussion board. I asked the admin. Rifleman 82. However, as you see, he didn't answer me anything above (even from his talk page). He didn't give me any warning and simply send the request for block, I don't think it is fair and accurate. For me I don't object any admin block me, but I can't accept someone put false accusation on my part. Thank you for your attention! 70.55.135.115 07:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

70.55.135.115 is a known trouble-maker in Singapore passport [1], and his "improvements" to this article appear to be nothing more than childish reflex when his "downplaying of Singaporean hardsell" was twarted. Hardly surprising, therefore, that he couldnt give a better reason for removing some perfectly normal pictures here.--Huaiwei 15:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that not all pics need to be 300 pixels wide. The pictures themselves, however, are neither too many nor too few. They are just right, and appropriate for each section. -Amatulic 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe it would be fair to say that there is consensus for the article as it is, and the anon IP's changes are just flying against that, and should stop (even if necessary, by block for disruption). As far as I can see, no consensus to resize. IMO it's perfectly fine. – Chacor 11:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

what do you mean by consensus? did you ask them one by one and record them one by one? I told you, I fear no block, go ahead and block me. 70.52.72.7 13:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Consensus if you are genuinely interested to know just how concensus-building in wikipedia comes about. You need not interrogate any member on matters as basic as this. It would be most helpful if the initiative which drove you to remove pictures could be somehow directed towards gaining familiarity with how this place operates.--Huaiwei 15:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telugu TV Channels

Telugu speaking community is second largest Indian community in Singapore. But there is no Telugu TV channels are available in Singapore to entertain them. StarHub has received numerous request to introduce Telugu TV channels. But StarHub has already introduced Tamil and Hindi TV channels. It will be happy if Telugu TV channels are introduced in Singapore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.67.140.42 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 16 November 2006.

Well, I guess you could write to MediaCorp or StarHub about that. Despite rumours to the contrary, we lowly Wikipedia editors don't actually have the power to introduce new television channels. -ryand 16:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the 2000 Singapore census, less than 14% of the Indian population speaks languages "other" than the official ones, and the Telugu percentage is likely much lower. Also this page indicates that only about 600 people in Singapore speak Telugu; hardly enough to warrant a whole TV channel. That number is very likely out of date, but it makes me skeptical that Telugu speakers comprise the "second largest" Indian community. -Amatulic 02:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That was very good informative responses. Thanks for responding. I strongly feel that current Telugu speaking people population will be a good number. After the IT boom, many Telugu people are coming to Singapore. Telugu TV channels are particulary required for female dependants. When the boy goes for work, his wife (if she is house-wife) or his mother needs Telugu stuff to watch in TV. If they do not have any stuff to watch and pass the time, it will lead to many health problems. This is already happening. Current census of Telugu people will be much much more than 2000 year census. It is our sincere request to Singapore Government and StarHub to introduce Telugu TV channels.

--192.193.221.202 04:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm afraid that this isn't a place for petitions to the government, however. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 18:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not controlled by the Government of Singapore, and it is not a blog either (see WP:NOT).--Joshua Chiew 00:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You could try broadcasting by internet ... John Riemann Soong 05:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Democracy

How democratic is Singapore? Find out in the Economist Intelligence Unit's new survey: http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf (Answer: ranked 84th out of 167 countries in the world, below Albania and Malaysia but above Iraq. Any brave soul want to add this to main article?)

Wow.. congrat on the find! However, since the articles of the first ranked Sweden and the last ranked North Korea make no mention of their rankings, being somewhere in the middle of the ranking is hardly a thing to be excited about or noteworthy. --Vsion 08:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The survey has only just been published, so perhaps that's no surprise.

Singapore is not described as a "democracy", or a "flawed democracy" (like Malaysia), but a a third division "hybrid" of authoritarianism and democracy. That surely is noteworthy. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so it should have "encyclopedic" coverage of its subjects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.117.143.29 (talk • contribs).

I added that information to International rankings of Singapore, I find it quite interesting myself. Nonetheless, Singapore is still a potential Feature Article candidate, and several reviewers have advised against adding most of these rankings into the article. The article does mention Worldwide Press Freedom Index (140th out of 167) which is more well-known.--Vsion 02:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Singapore is not a democracy, nor a hyrid of democracy and something else. Singapore has democratic elements. It is not an "authoritarian democracy", nor a "democratic authoritarian state". It is a dominant-party republic with little checks and balances. Think French Revolution, without the guillotine, and without the massive faction upheavals. John Riemann Soong 10:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to Singapore for beating Iraq, which turned "democratic" thanks to American might! :D--Huaiwei 16:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I would hope (or expect) that between the 1st world and 3rd world countries in that "hybrid democracy" category, the 1st-world ones would beat the 3rd-world ones. What I find interesting is that Singapore shares this category with what seem (to me) to be mostly 3rd-world countries. -Amatulic 02:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Singapore's Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong himself mused that Singapore is "first world" economically, but "third world" socially.--Huaiwei 12:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

(reply to Amatulic) Taiwan, Hong Kong, and South Korea were in similar situation not too long ago. The resistance to change the political system is somehow stronger in Singapore. Or, one can argue that there hasn't been a serious event in Singapore that would have prompted the change, unlike in the other three Asian Dragons (Lee TengHui's rule, 1997-handover, corruption, etc.). --Vsion 15:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting observation. The 1997 handover of Hongkong might be a similar scale of event to the independence of Singapore several decades ago, but oddly the transformation from British rule to independence left Singapore's government in a more authoritarian state than the UK's. Maybe resistance to change is due to the one-party situation. Or maybe change simply isn't necessary because Singapore's current situation works perfectly well for them. And anyway, a "pure" democracy isn't necessarily a good thing if it means majority can trample on individual rights.

In my view, the only important thing sorely lacking in Singapore is a press free from censorship (and if Singapore were located in the European region, I believe the lack of a free press would disqualify Singapore from membership in the EU). On the other hand, when I visit Singapore, I find the Straits Times to be a remarkably unfettered newspaper (better quality than most US news sources), although overt criticism of the government doesn't really appear in it. -Amatulic 17:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Individual rights" wasn't the issue of the 1960s. Back then, British's overwhelming concern was that Singapore would become a communist state. That could easily have happened because of the Chinese majority and Singapore could have become the fifth column of communist expansion. This would be detrimental to Britain's interests in the region. For this reason, the British supported the "undemocratic" measure, Operation Coldstore, to arrest 100+ pro-communists under the Internal Security Act (ISA) in 1963. PAP's dominance started from there. I agree with your comments on local press, they virtually play no role in providing checks on government mismanagement and power abuse. --Vsion 19:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why move it?

Why has the page been moved from Singapore to Singapore (country)? It is the most important article named Singapore and I see no reason why this should be done (it causes redirects) --TheTallOne 16:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. Terence Ong 16:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong agree, please discuss such radical moves on requested moves and/or article talkpage. - SpLoT _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 17:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

it is noted that the user who initiated the move is a relative newbie. Some form of guidance may be needed here.--Huaiwei 17:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a clueless newbie, needs some help along the way. Who wants to guide this newbie? Terence Ong 17:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In the United States, there are some towns named "Singapore"; I can't remember which exactly, but US towns have an apparent tradition of copying the names of international places. (e.g. Lebanon, Maine.) John Riemann Soong 00:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Then we should use a disambig page with Singapore retaining the main article, as per convention with Lebanon (Lebanon (disambiguation)). – Chacor 08:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] government-linked

"Government-linked corporation" is a propaganda term for state-owned institutions. I have not seen it in common parlance except among state documents and overzealous Straits Times reports. John Riemann Soong 10:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I already pointed it out to the user in question that it was POV, and he seems to have accepted our NPOV policy, per his reply to my talk page. – Chacor 10:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether it is NPOV is beside the point. This is the term used in Singapore to describe them. GLC should be used; if necessary explanatory notes can be used in parantheses or footnotes. --Rifleman 82 10:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(To John) Did the propaganda office write this article: Government Linked Companies? I have seen the terms used by non-state publications and outside the Singapore context. "State-owned institutions" are different entities. "Government-linked companies" is more commonly used than "Government-controlled companies", probably because it is more precise. I suggest the change to "government-linked corporation".--Vsion 15:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Having to call them GLCs is like having to refer to North Korea as the DPRK all the time, despite the fact that we know the "democratic" qualifier (in our case, the "government-linked" euphemism) is generally just to honey-up the term. GLCs, among other things, are entities with significant stake (generally a majority) invested into them by the state corporation Temasek Holdings, which puts them under the umbrella of state industry. Let us not pander to government terms just because that's what the government wishes us to call them, or because it's stated in our textbooks, which are far from neutral. The last time I remembered, we didn't refer to the Republic of China as Chinese Taipei just because Beijing's textbooks said so. We have an article on Chinese Taipei, to explain its use, but that's another thing entirely. John Riemann Soong 12:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

On that PRK commentary, it really depends on where you are coming from. It has been argued, that Communism is also a form of democracy. Its only the liberal democracies, which happen to be the most popularised form of democracy (and which many assume, quite erronously, to be "true democracy") thanks to western democracies, who paint communism as anti-democratic.--Huaiwei 00:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh? I think most of the world communists have rejected Juche as one of their own as well as National Bolshevism. There would be a difference between a "Democratic Commune of Paris" (if it existed today) and the DRPK. John Riemann Soong 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

(To John) Government Linked Companies is a well-established term with fairly precise meaning and commonly used throughout the world, it even has a wikipedia article to explain it and the article doesn't say it is an euphemism. Where did you get the idea that it is a euphemism? I'm quite surprised you are confusing it with "state industry". Privatisation of services has been the hallmark of the PAP government for over 30 years. I guess the school textbooks forget to explain the differences. --Vsion 07:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Government-linked companies are government-owned companies. All companies under the hierarchy of Temasek Holdings are effectively government-controlled companes what. That'd be like calling the Straits Times not a state-run newspaper. There are distinctions - for example the editorial staff at Today - though under SPH - are considerably more lenient than the Straits Times and more disjunct from the establishment. (Bhavani actually had to write to Today in order to get mr brown fired, for example). But they are still all state industries. John Riemann Soong 16:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That is outright inaccurate. "linked", "owned" and "controlled" are not synonyms, and each can exist without the other. If you consider all companies "under the hierarchy of Temasek Holdings" as "government-controlled companes", then I suppose the Bank of China, Standard Chartered Bank, Shin Corporation, Telekom Malaysia, etc, are all "Singapore Govenment-owned" companies? And yes, I will not call the Straits Times a "state-run newspaper".--Huaiwei 16:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a state-run newspaper? The ST is as about independent from the government as the Pravda was. Anyhow, my trouble is with calling companies in which the SG government owns the majority of the stock as simply "government-linked" when they play a dominant role in the economy. The companies in which the SG government just owns a small stake don't actually "dominate the economy", so I don't mind the term "GLC" for them. John Riemann Soong 23:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

When a company dominates an industrial sector or market, it is call a monopoly. The monopolising company can be a state-company, government-linked, public, or private. --Vsion 14:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Since Creative Technology happens to dominate the soundcard business, and Osim International dominates the message chair sector, are we supposed to call them GLCs next?--Huaiwei 15:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. The significant companies that *are* controlled by the government, dominate the economy, that is most of the so-called GLCs in which the government have more than a 50% stake in them are really state industries. Besides Creative Technology doesn't really "dominate" the soundcard business, nor OSIM, not in the authoritative way that the SPH does over the others (through government regulation). John Riemann Soong 11:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find any reference that suggest that the term "GLC" is an euphemism by the Government. Please provide such a reference before inserting it in the article. As mentioned above, the phrase is widely used, in an objective manner, outside the Singapore content, as easily verified by google search [2]. --Vsion 05:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Many of these don't refer to GLCs, just pages about government links. And besides, where they did use it, I'm sure Malaysia is a shining example of demoracy here. John Riemann Soong 09:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

A change I made earlier stating Singapore is the fourth most densely populated country in the world is reverted, yet in the article Demographics of Singapore, the first sentence wrote "Singapore's demographics describe a population of 4.48 million, as estimated by the last census in 2005 and is the fourth most densely populated country in the world." So is it the second or the fourth? Mr.Clown 15:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Second, according to List of countries by population density --Vsion 16:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But in List of countries, Hong Kong and Macao are included and in most international rankings, they are treated as individual countries, but i know their special status and relation with China. --Mr.Clown 02:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And there must be a reason why that list states "countries and regions", and that Hong Kong and Macau were indicated in italics.--Huaiwei 13:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singaporean Cuisine

I got the impression from a brief visit to Singapore that "Food is a national pastime," is kind of a nationalistic catchphrase in Signapore, but perhaps it ought to be quoted as such rather than stated as fact. It has always challenged my capacities of linguistic comprehension that the term "pastime" can be applied to an activity which an individual must engage in or die. Everyone in every country eats a lot of that country's own food. Several times a day. What differentiates the way Singaporeans eat their food from the way Americans eat hamburgers or the way Mexicans eat tacos or the way Northern Indians eat naan other than local pride? If nothing, then the phrase should only be included in the wikipedia article on Singapore as a localist catchphrase. --Techgeist 16:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

When the activity is referred to as a "pastime", it means it has become a daily activity which transgress mere "needs", but as a indulgance people partake in as and when they feel like it, and very often beyond normal mealtimes. And they get lots of company in this regard. It does seem true that the vast majority of social activities in Singapore revolve around food at every level of society.--Huaiwei 17:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well for all you know other countries rely on IV tubes instead. :P But yeah, I get what you mean. I guess it deals more with the role that hawker stalls play in the culture. For example, (one can tell Lee Hsien Loong rarely eats at hawker stalls because he doesn't seem to know that hawker stalls generally do not serve mee siam without cockles. (Which in turn shows the establishment's disconnect with local culture.) John Riemann Soong 17:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Erm...I think its "do not serve mee siam with cockles". :D--Huaiwei 00:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps "always serve mee siam without cockles". Double-negatve error, yeah. :D John Riemann Soong 06:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's called 民以食為天, meaning food is god of the people, just powdered up to sound like an Anglo phrase. -- 我♥中國 07:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why are there scare quotes here?

Later, they became home to many Japanese generals after the "fall of Singapore" during World War II.

See what style guide has to say on the subject. patsw 22:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article was quoted in a local Saipan daily

"Moreover, according to an online encyclopedia, Singapore 'is aggressively pushing for the permanent assimilation of these foreign workers by offering easier processing time for permanent residency or citizenship.'" See http://www.mvariety.com/calendar/dec/07/editorialpage/editorial01.htm

C.m.jones 23:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

More like "aggressively punishing PRs by imposing stiffer taxes, fees, military service and giving none of the benefits expected". -- 我♥中國 07:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Really meh. The government seems to treat its foreign talent better than its own citizens. The grass is greener ... John Riemann Soong 13:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That reminds me... recently my wife, a Singapore citizen, asked me to fill out a PR application (available here). The form asks me to tick a box declaring that I am the wife, child, or parent of a Singaporean citizen — but not husband or spouse! It made me think that being married to a Singaporean male counts for something, but being married to a Singaporean female doesn't matter. Admittedly the web site http://app.ica.gov.sg/serv_pr/per_res/app_for_pr.asp does say "spouse" but I thought the choices on the form were bizarre. -Amatulic 21:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, until as late as 1999, Singaporean women could not sponsor their foreign-born husbands for PR. It was quite a hugh issue back then, about the "bias" against foreign-born husbands, and was discussed quite fervently in Parliament. Bizarre as it is, what prompted the policy change had not much to do with gender equality, rather it was because Singapore was losing too many women because their families couldn't lived together here. Apparently, they forgot to update the form after the policy change. --Vsion 23:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bonny Hicks

I greatly expanded the article for Bonny Hicks recently, rescuing it from an AfD procedure. Please contribute more as you deem fitting. Also, if you think it might deserve Good Article Status, please visit its nomination page at Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates. CyberAnth 06:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is to discuss about the Singapore article and its subpages such as History of Singapore, I suggest you post such things at WT:SG! rather than here. Terence Ong 13:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why delete so much content of economy section????

Who was the one who deleted so much content from the economy section??? There's so much useful info there and its all being deleted. Someone who can retrieve the history, please put it back! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darrentzw (talk • contribs) 10:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Why delete so much content of economy section????

Who was the one who deleted so much content from the economy section??? There's so much useful info there and its all being deleted. Someone who can retrieve the history, please put it back!fatty 10:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do this, but there's a big gap between the heading of the "Military" section and the information. Is this because of the photos and does anyone know how to delete the gap? Jedi feline 10:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UDI

The info box references a UDI in 1957. Could someone provide a pointer to the source for this information? Thanks! Bo 14:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)