Talk:Law of Singapore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Singapore (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Merging 'Law of Singapore' and 'Law Enforcement in Singapore'[edit]

I think that 'Law Enforcement in Singapore' should be merged with 'Singapore Police Force' as it doesn't really add anything more to the latter article. Jacklee 14:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That does appear so in its present state. There is actually much scope for expansion, since the SPF isnt the only law-enforcing agency in Singapore.--Huaiwei 14:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, perhaps there are two ways to go about it. One is to have an article called 'Law Enforcement in Singapore' and talk about the Singapore Police Force and other law-enforcement agencies (eg, the Central Narcotics Bureau and Singapore Customs) in it. The other way is to do away with a general article on law enforcement and just have separate articles on the various law enforcement agencies, or reduce the law enforcement article to a page containing links to the other articles. I think the latter option may be preferable. Jacklee 00:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose they are different concepts, so even if they happen to be presented as the same concepts, we should remedy that instead of concur and effect any conflation. Chensiyuan 12:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not clear what you mean. Are you suggesting that 'Law Enforcement in Singapore' should be left as a distinct article and beefed up with more information (ie, the first option I suggested)? Jacklee 21:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
yes Chensiyuan 09:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sharia law[edit]

Should there be a section on the place of Sharia courts in Singapore? -- Paul 22:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Syariah law -- that is, the family and succession law aspects of it -- does form part of the law in Singapore under the Administration of Muslim Law Act. However, I'm wondering if it is better to have a separate article on that, and perhaps just a brief mention in 'Law of Singapore' and a link to that article. Jacklee 21:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed major changes to this article[edit]

I've been making major changes to this article to improve its content, and propose to make the following changes:

  • Merging the 'Censorship' section with 'Censorship in Singapore' (and thus deleting it from this article).
  • Creating a new article entitled 'Criminal law in Singapore' (and thus deleting the 'Criminal law' section from this article).

Does anyone have views on this before I go ahead? Jacklee 08:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

what you said makes sense. Chensiyuan 08:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I compared the contents of the 'Censorship' section with the 'Censorship in Singapore' article, and found that the article repeated much of what was in the former in greater detail. I've therefore deleted the 'Censorship' section. I've also created a new article 'Criminal law of Singapore' and transferred the contents of the 'Criminal law' section there. 'Criminal law of Singapore' is currently a stub and needs expansion. Jacklee 10:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Great work in expanding the article. I would like to suggest an organisation of the article. There seems to be a lack of an overview article providing an introduction to the Law or judicial system in Singapore. Such an article would cover major topics of the subject, such as
  • History of Law in Singapore
  • Sources of Law
  • Constitution of Singapore
    • Constitutional Rights
  • Criminal law (or Penal Code)
    • Capital punishment
    • Internal Security Act, etc
  • Other laws
    • Corporate law
    • Family law
    • Tort law (etc.)
  • Judicial system
    • Legal procedure
  • Legal profession
  • Law enforcement
  • Review (comment, criticism, controversy, etc)
In other words, I'm suggesting a Wikipedia:Summary style. In a summary-styled article, each topic is described briefly (about 3-5 paragraphs), and there is a pointer to the main article that describes the topic in greater details. There would be some duplicate content, but the advantage is greater, as this would result in a stable overview article that is more accessible to readers. The creation of daughter articles also facilitates expansion for these more specific topics. The summary-style is popular in wikipedia, especially for articles which are more mature and of general topic. Examples of sg-articles adopting summary-style are Singapore, History of Singapore, Politics of Singapore, Education in Singapore. This article seems to be a suitable candidate for such an overview article, you may want to consider using this approach as you expands the topic further. Thanks for your contribution. --Vsion 05:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a good idea. The current article is too heavily weighted in favour of the history of Singapore law and sources of Singapore law, which could be articles of their own. Producing a summary style article will probably take quite a long time – perhaps priority should be given to producing the individual detailed articles that you've proposed, then combining the introductory paragraphs of these articles to create the 'Law of Singapore' summary article. Jacklee 14:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mmsia1.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Mmsia1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — Cheers, JackLee talk 13:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Judicial independence[edit]

Hi, Jpatokal. The information you recently added to the article doesn't fit in the "Sources of Singapore law" section. Even if, as the US Department of State claims, the President and Minister for Home Affairs wield judicial power, this does not make them a "source of law". Furthermore, the information is POV – some information refuting the State Department's stand needs to be added, for balance. If you want to discuss that topic in the article there needs to be a separate section dealing with the issue. I have temporarily moved the information over to the article "Judicial system of Singapore" (which is itself in need of massive overhaul). — Cheers, JackLee talk 04:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Singapore Parliament House.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Singapore Parliament House.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 29 September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)