Talk:Singapore/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bad article

This article does not address the four things that make Singapore most famous, i.e. the banning of chewing gum, its liberal use of hanging and MANDATORY death penalty, its hatred of gays, and the caning of Michael Fay. They should be mentioned!

The use of PPP-adjusted per capita GDP gives an erroneous picture. Singapore ranks 5, ahead of the US and Switzerland, and many other obviously wealthier countries in Western Europe. It should be stated in non PPP-adjusted per capita GDP, which represents real wealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.106.117 (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Singapore's life expectancy

According to CIA world factbook, Singapore is currently holds the 4th position in the world with a life expectancy of 81.89 years.(Beating HK etc). That is one achievement we should be proud of.

I suggest that we include this under the 'demographics' section. Even HK, Andorra, Japan has mentioned about their long life expectancy in their webpage.

Yes. According to is, Singapore is 4th, and I guess I'll put it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zheliel (talk • contribs) 07:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

5th Wealthiest Country in the World?

The article states this in the introduction paragraph: Singapore is the 5th wealthiest country in the world in terms of GDP (PPP) per capita.[6] However, the notation seems to provide no real evidence to this that I could discern, and this Wikipedia page on GDP (PPP) per capita lists Singapore somewhere in the 40s, not fifth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) Am I missing something here?

I guess so. Vandalism is highly likely. And by the way, there already is a comment about this.

This shows the ranking of Singapore in terms of GDP per PPP. zhelielSign here 06:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Singapore is 44th wealthiest country in terms of GDP (PPP) per capita, according to the IMF and the CIA World Factbook, and 42nd acoording to the World Bank. zhelielSign here 07:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Another DEATH sentence for marijuana

Despite the large protests after the case of Shanmugam Murugesu, the country continues to impose extreme penalties for what many people in the world consider to be a pleasant, or even religious, smoke. It seems very possible this is going to trigger further social unrest in Singapore. This is another significant event that is already drawing world-wide attention:

http://thefreshscent.com/2009/01/05/singapore-court-gives-death-sentence-for-marijuana-charge/ Ykral 23:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

  • So what is the big deal all about? Haven't you heard? Crime does not pay... if you do it then you just have to pay for it. It is no different from committing a crime and doing the time... so unless you are advocating that crime does pay and the accused can walk free for drug trafficking? If not, then we shall just bid you-the persistent POV pusher adieu! --Dave1185 (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If u want to be heard and be counted, why not bark at the right tree here, or if u want free publicity for your cause, here too if u have the genuine conviction to do so. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox for your rantings or cheap shots here - We are just simple folks who are only interested in improving and protecting the aspirations of Wikipedia (See our rules on Wikidrama and POV pushing). Move your chip elsewhere please. -- Kulikah (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The topic is an essential legal discussion inside Singapore, and also demonstrates to the world a part of its 'culture'. It goes far beyond any POV issue; rather, it provides outsiders with important information about local law, culture and issues. If the state of New York, USA, suddenly imposes the death penalty for driving over 60 MPH, certainly it would merit mention. It is very similar to world reaction when 13-year-old girls are stoned to death after being raped. Have a look at this photo and then we can clarify your positions about 'just obey the law':

http://www.igfm.de/uploads/RTEmagicC_Steinigung_Frau_Iran.jpg.jpg

Thank you.Ykral (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has been contributing as an IP previously, I've seen lots of similar discussions and actions by proponents using Wikipedia to advocate their 'cause' under the banner of 'nationalism', 'human-rights', 'religious righteousness' etc, which led to some sad and unpleasant consequences (including legal warnings/actions) afterwards. Ultimately, the community will decide collectively on the tone and content of any article here, whether one like it or not (or choose to ignore) in one way or another. As some of the articles here are heavily-watched by the community, including by academia/history experts, as well as by outside watchers too, it's prudent to watch what one say or do, as one's edit history and IP address (via WP:Checkuser or other official requests) is hard to conceal or deny later. Good luck to what you hope to achieve here. -- Kulikah (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Description of system of government is ridiculous

I'm sorry, but this article makes the classic mistake of confusing 'neutrality' and avoiding difficult truths. There is no question Singapore is an authoritarian regime dressed up with the trappings of democracy. For example, it is simply incorrect to say "Singapore is a parliamentary democracy with a Westminster system of unicameral parliamentary government". At the very least, this sentence should say "Singapore is nominally a parliamentary democracy with a Westminster system of unicameral parliamentary government". The description of the system of government should be singnificantly modified to reflect the fact that, although elections take place, they are conducted in an environment which ensures that one party is always successful.

Similarly, the information which is included about the systematic use of the power of parliament and the courts to crush opposition is put in terms of "foreign political analysts and several opposition parties" who have "argued that Singapore is essentially a one-party state". Again this is dodging the fact that Singapore is a one-party state, not because of what "foreign political analysts" or opposition parties say, but because as a matter of objective fact that is the case: one party has been in power since independence, and it is clear from the current circumstances in the country that they will remain in power indefinitely.

Finally, a great deal more should be said about the use of "libel" lawsuits to stifle criticism of the government. This is an interesting and significant feature of the way in which Singapore is able to present itself to the naive (such as the authors of this article, apparently) as a "democracy" whilst using government power (via the courts) to shut down open discussion. Any criticism of Government policies or members of the Government amounts to "libel" and is severely punished via huge civil damages claims. Yet there are barely two words about this in the article.

203.39.12.130 (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Any material backed up by sources meeting the WP:RS and WP:V policies are fair game to add to this article, provided you also keep the text neutral and free of biased wording. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Rate of executions

The introductions states that Singapore is the states "with the highest rate of executions per capita in the world." - even though there is no source given. I would suggest removing this passage, as I did not find ANY source on the internet undermining this statement. According to this ai-article , there are no reliable numbers given by the government of Singapore. And even though Singapore might indeed have a high number of executions per capita, the above statement is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.194.34.103 (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense about "self sufficiency"

"The fledgling nation had to be self-sufficient" No country in the world is self sufficient. All depend on trade with other countries - even North Korea. Singapore has become even more dependent on other countries than it was in the 1960s as its economic growth was built on foreign trade and foreign investment. This has created an economy that is remarkably underdeveloped domestically. So I think "self sufficient" is a very misleading term here.

Self sufficient as in it does not rely on foreign aid for its existence. Its people can make a living for themselves and so can the country Nicholas.tan (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Secession, withdrawal, expulsion, separation etc, in 1965.

Words like secession and withdrawal, etc, do not describe what happened in 1965. According to the Malaysia Agreement and the Constitution of Malaysia, no state has the right to secede/withdraw. In 1965, Singapore was expelled by vote of Parliament and proper wording has to be used to reflect that. I suggest the word "separate", "separation" or even more precise, expulsion, expelled be used in place of words like secede, secession, withdrawal. The words have to inform readers that what happened in 1965 wasn't an action by Singapore but rather, an action by the federation.__earth (Talk) 13:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

De jure, it was a bilateral agreement that made Singapore independent, i.e. both Malaysia and Singapore agreed to the separation. De facto, the situation was more contentious; one can argue that Singapore was expelled unilaterally by an Act of Parliament of Malaysia. Secondary school history textbooks in Malaysia mentioned lightly about the independence of Singapore, and the word used is usually "separation". Not sure about Singapore textbooks though. I prefer the usage of "separation" because it is a neutral word compared with words like "expulsion", etc. Words like "withdrawal" and "secession" should not be used, because it may suggest that Singapore declared independence without consent of the Malaysian government, which was not the case. --Joshua Say "hi" to me!What I've done? 17:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
De jure and de facto, it's expulsion. That agreement was signed only after the vote of Parliament (the vote and the agreement happened on August 7). To sign the agreement before the vote would be illegal by law. __earth (Talk) 13:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oversized

This article is now 103 KB in size, and is already in the "Almost certainly should be divided" category (Wikipedia:Article size). Users have consistently flouted the "keep size at 80 KB" rule at the head of the article, and no one is doing any downsizing edit. What are we going to do about it? Keep growing? DORC (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Judowo Sudarsono, harboured economic criminals & Defence Agreements?

Will there be any referenced to 80 ethnic fugitive criminals being harboured in Singapore money known to have their stolen Indonesian State momeny parked in numbered DBS accounts, as stated by Judowo Sudarsono- Indonesian Minister for Defence, quoting actual DBS account documentation obtained under warrant, whom also tore up the deference co-operation agreement with Singapore? Will there be any discussion of Singapore's weakened defense position and its' vulnerability to attack? Also- will their be any detailed discussion on the much discussed "Swiss of the East Singaporean banking system which flouts international Law and convention? Perhaps also an discussion on the comparison of the salary of Lee Kwan Yew and his nett worth, and the coincidence of his son being Prime Minister? I would be very inetersted to help improve this article with peer-reviewed documentation?Starstylers (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Starstylers, you never seem to change one bit even after this long period of absence from editing Singapore related article, please bear in mind that this is the country page which we are editing here on wikipedia, it was never ever about LKY or LSL or your beloved Judowo. Stay focused! There are external forums and other venues for you to go push your view in but wikipedia is obviously not one for you, take heed. Thank you in advance for not politicizing a neutral article/topic. --Dave1185 (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To all patrollers currently watching this page, do monitor this user's edits on any SG-related articles and to revert, or follow-up if necessary as per the outstanding notice on his userpage. See for yourself whether his discourses on several talkpages and 'superior' edits have been inspiring or constructive as seen from his recent active spell of edits since Mar 26. You may want to check out a few recent responses by other editors which aptly summed up this user's edit profile and agenda. Good hunting! -- Kulikah (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Lost archive

I was looking for some old material in the talk page that wasn't there. I found out it had been removed [1] for whatever reason. I added it back as Talk:Singapore/Archive 0. I haven't checked extensively so there could still be more missing material Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Well that's because it went here instead. Archiving is neither automatic nor standardized in its time. - Mailer Diablo 08:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A bit too opinion dependent?

"A strange fact in Singapore is that there is no visible difference in salaries of fresh engineering under graduates and that of foreign students who graduate with higher degrees from universities like National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University. Under current recession, even a good university degree is unable to fetch a job to aspiring graduates which is another indicator of the weakness of the country's export driven economy."

Sounds a bit too much like a rant than an infopost, especially with the term "Current recession", it's a limited time term which can be confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.103.111 (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  • The strange statement was removed following a quick logical review, thank you. --Dave1185 (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Montage

I can't help myself, but these montages on all the wikipedia pages covering countries or cities look really cheesy. I agree a picture is useful to portray a city, but the montages used here look very very unprofessional -- besides, Wikipedia should focus more on content than creating more useless graphics. There is enough of that online already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.231.32.195 (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of Singapura

Singapura the Malay word comes from the sanskrit word 'sinhapura' which means the city of lion. Since there are no lions in Singapore or the Malayan Peninsula, it is likely that the name Sinhapura actually refers to the Sinhapura kingdom in the epic Mahabharata II.27.20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.7.247 (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely that the person who answered Sang Nila Utama would have given that name singha to the animal. Firstly, Sang Nila Utama would naturally have asked the wisest follower of his. If the follower has seen a lion as in India before, he would naturally be able to differentiate a tiger from a lion. If he has not seen a lion before, why would he say a tiger is a lion? Also, it is highly unlikely that Sang Nila Utama has not seen a tiger before landing in Temasek. The name Sinhapura wouldn't have been made at the spur of the moment since the place has already got a name, i.e. Temasek. So Sang Nila Utama would have got the time to find an auspicious name to christine his new found kingdom, and Sinhapura would be a good name since lions are mythical creatures as far as that region is concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamanakara (talk • contribs) 13:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Posts above are speculative, and even wise men can screw up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.103.111 (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Equally likely that it is from Tamil, 'Singham = lion' and 'Puram = town'. Considering historically South Indians have had a stronger influence on the region (from Chola periods etc.) this would be more likely. Tamil is not a derived language either, so Sankskrit influence on it is as likely as its influence on Sanskrit.113.22.192.194 (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Public health laws

Here is an interesting New York Times article from 2003 about public health laws in Singapore, and how successful they have been at combating threats in the past. Not sure where to incorporate it, but I think it would be a good thing to have in the article somewhere... TastyCakes (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

GDP ranking

The text cites Singapore's per capita GDP as 5th in the world, but the info column on the right quotes 22nd. The reference to the "5th" is a web site that's not so easy to extract information from, and besides, is from 2007. Pajer (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up PPP and nominal GDP rankings... TastyCakes (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

COI/POV

Hi SGpedians, this Gchuva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) removed an entry here recently, citing "Update Singapore Biennale discussion" when none is seen on the article talkpage previously, and despite the irrefutable fact that the Singapore Bienanal 2008 was indeed held from 11 September to 16 November last year. The same user has been reverting these edits [2] [3] and adding references and related images elsewhere in Wikipedia to an article he created previously, which he is likely to be affiliated with as according to the tone of his edits to date. Other than promoting certain individuals or groups, some of these additions are hardly notable or relevant as per the context of the article concerned. I've already posted a reminder to him here. I'll leave it to you folks to monitor and decide on this matter. -- Kulikah (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The most competitive and best place to live in Asia

According to surveys done by BusinessWeek in 2008/2009, Singapore was ranked 5th in terms of global competitiveness[1] and the 26th best place to live in the world'[2] making it the most competitive and best place to live in Asia—surpassing Japan.

References

  • "Books About Singapore: A Select Bibliography by National Library Board Singapore". Retrieved 2009-07-21.

Simple editorial request

{{editsemiprotected}} I noticed the last sentence of the first paragraph reading as follows: "These, as well as San Marino, are the only other surviving sovereign city-states." I believe that Monaco is also a sovereign city-state and suggest adding that reference as well. Refer to this site's article on Monaco.Cwfinch (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Done I removed San Marino, which does not appear to be a city-state, and tweaked the prose. The list now includes only those city-states listed at City-state#Sovereign_city-states —C45207 | Talk 04:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The page unnecessarily flags [citation required] where there is no such need: e.g. "The length of the day is nearly constant year round due to the country's location near the equator". The variation of length of day with latitude is a well-known geographical fact. The latitude can be inferred from the article itself. No citation is required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.0.183.22 (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Typo?

{{editsemiprotected}} Noticed what I think is a typo, but I don't have an account. Towards the top, in the line "The Singapore government, with approval from the President, announced in March 2009 that it would tap into her official reserves for the first time ever, and withdraw some S$4.9 billion.", shouldn't it be "it would tap into their official reserves" instead? Maybe lose an extemporaneous comma or two from the paragraph as well, but bottom line, I'm not making an account to fix a typo.

A wise decision; I did that a couple of years ago, and I've been logged in ever since :-/
I've corrected the grammar, and removed one of the excessive commas.

 Done

Singapore's population

Singapore's population now stood at 4.99 million (4,987,600 to be exact). I'm not good and more or less i have difficulty in modifying the box, so it will be greatly appreciated if someone else help me do it.

Sources:

LordThrall (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Entrepôt?

This statement: "Singapore has a highly developed market-based economy, which has historically revolved around extended entrepôt trade, in other words an export driven economy hugely dependant on export of goods to other countries" appears to misunderstand the nature of an entrepôt, defined correctly under that heading in the Wikipedia article on it. An entrepôt's reason for being is to provide a trading center, particularly one that avoids taxes, though many such, like Singapore, have evolved from that into manufacturing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.244.15 (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Coordinate error (Singapore)

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fixes:

  • Write here

1 18 41 09 N 103 48 14 48 E 219.74.162.40 (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Free Trade Agreements

According to Singapore FTA Network website on www.fta.gov.sg, Singapore now has 16 FTAs, not 14 as mentioned in the page. 119.234.131.112 (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Right you are, thanks for your watchful eye. With this edit I updated wikipedia to reflect the website you mentioned. I also dated the statement FTAs so that hopefully we don't again go two years without refreshing this section. Thanks again. —fudoreaper (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this necessary to put a list of this on the page of Singapore itself. It's already mentioned in the economy section and this article is getting a bit long. Nicholas Tan (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Probably this list isn't right for the singapore article itself. I updated it for accuracy, but what we should probably do is summarize on the main page, and link to the Economy of Singapore article. —fudoreaper (talk) 07:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-saxon bias: Jury trials.

The following statement in the article is a blatant example of anglo-saxon bias: "government has also chosen not to follow some elements of liberal democratic values. There are no jury trials ..." We don't have jury trials in Sweden either, and everyone here regards that as a cornerstone of the rule of law, that judges - and not an easily manipulated and intimidated jury - will decide a case. LUKE 84.23.155.84 (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Luke, please register a username and fix this as it is Semi-Page Protected to prevent anonymous IP editors from vandalising it, I trust that you can do a better job than they do, yeah? Cheers~! --Dave 1185 16:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ ""test"".
  2. ^ ""test"".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Singapore/Archive_5&oldid=1143536578"