User:Sgconlaw/2010-2011 archive
(Redirected from User:Smuconlaw/2010-2011 archive)
Here are the articles that were created or expanded by students in Semester 2 of the 2010–2011 academic year. (The articles were re-edited before they were turned into Wikipedia articles.)
| ← 2009–2010 | 2011–2012 → |
| Group | Section G3 | Section G51 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Administrative law in Singapore | Presidential Council for Minority Rights |
| 2 | Rule of law doctrine in Singapore | Right to vote in Singapore law |
| 3 | Precedent fact errors in Singapore law | Natural justice |
| 4 | Illegality in Singapore administrative law | Remedies in Singapore administrative law |
| 5 | Article 9 of the Constitution of Singapore The section on the meaning of the terms life and personal liberty in Article 9(1). |
|
| 6 | Public Prosecutor v. Taw Cheng Kong |
|
| 7 | Article 14 of the Constitution of Singapore Section on "Restrictions on the right to freedom of speech, assembly and association" explaining how Article 14(2) has been interpreted by the courts. |
|
| 8 | Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act | Article 15 of the Constitution of Singapore Section on the meaning of the terms profess, practise and propagate in Article 15(1). |
Accolades[edit]
 | On 10 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Natural justice, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that common law rules of natural justice do not require public authorities to give reasons for their decisions? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Natural justice. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. Thanks from me and the wiki. — Victuallers (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC) |
| On 14 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Presidential Council for Minority Rights, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, a Singaporean body that ensures laws do not discriminate against racial or religious minorities, has not issued an adverse report since its creation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Presidential Council for Minority Rights. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. — Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC) |
"Presidential Council for Minority Rights" was rated a good article on 14 May 2012. | On 22 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act of Singapore allows restrictions to be placed on religious leaders who promote political causes under the guise of religious activity? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. — The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC) |
| On 15 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Public Prosecutor v. Taw Cheng Kong, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that as of 2009 the High Court of Singapore's judgment in the Taw Cheng Kong case was the only decision where a statutory provision had been struck down as unconstitutional? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Public Prosecutor v. Taw Cheng Kong. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. — v/r - TP 01:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC) 08:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
"Public Prosecutor v. Taw Cheng Kong" was rated a good article on 3 May 2012. | On 4 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eng Foong Ho v. Attorney-General, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Eng Foong Ho v. AG held that the Singapore Constitution was not breached when a Chinese temple was compulsorily acquired and an Indian mission and a Christian church nearby were not? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eng Foong Ho v. Attorney-General. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. — Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC) |
"Eng Foong Ho v. Attorney-General" was rated a good article on 1 May 2012. | On 12 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Article 14 of the Constitution of Singapore, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the rights to freedom of speech, assembly and association are only guaranteed by Article 14 of the Singapore Constitution to Singapore citizens? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Article 14 of the Constitution of Singapore. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. — Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC) |
"Article 14 of the Constitution of Singapore" was rated a good article on 24 January 2012. | On 7 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Administrative law in Singapore, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Singapore is said to espouse a "green-light" approach towards administrative law – that good government should be sought through the political process – given the government's focus on efficiency? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Administrative law in Singapore. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. — Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC) |
| On 3 February 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Remedies in Singapore administrative law, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that mandatory, prohibiting and quashing orders, and the order for review of detention, which are remedies available in Singapore administrative law, derive from ancient British prerogative writs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Remedies in Singapore administrative law. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. — The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC) |
| On 10 February 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Errors as to precedent facts in Singapore law, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that in a 1998 case the Singapore Court of Appeal held the Internal Security Act contained no precedent facts as Parliament clearly intended that detention decisions were to be made by the Government? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Errors as to precedent facts in Singapore law. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. — The DYK project (nominate) 09:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
"Precedent fact errors in Singapore law" was rated a good article on 24 April 2014. | On 17 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Right to vote in Singapore law, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the right to vote is not expressly stated in Singapore's Constitution? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Right to vote in Singapore law. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. — The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC) |
"Right to vote in Singapore law" was rated a good article on 17 May 2014. | On 4 April 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Illegality in Singapore administrative law, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the Singapore High Court once held that, by refusing berths to a company running gambling cruises, the port authority had not fettered its discretion – a form of illegality in administrative law? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Illegality in Singapore administrative law. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. — Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC) |
"Illegality in Singapore administrative law" was rated a good article on 27 April 2014. | On 15 May 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rule of law doctrine in Singapore, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that at a 1999 Singapore Parliament debate, opposition MP J.B. Jeyaretnam's motion that the Government should comply fully with the rule of law was amended to commend the Government for doing so? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rule of law doctrine in Singapore. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. — Shubinator (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC) |
"Rule of law doctrine in Singapore" was rated a good article on 27 July 2014. | On 14 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shadrake v. Attorney-General, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that in Shadrake v. Attorney-General, where a British journalist was charged with scandalizing the Singapore courts, the Court of Appeal declined to apply the American "clear and present danger" test? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template talk:Did you know/Shadrake v. Attorney-General. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. — Yngvadottir (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC) |
Participants[edit]
Group 1
|
Group 5 |
Group 2
|
Group 6 |
| Group 3 | Group 7 |
Group 4
|
Group 8
|
Group 1
|
Group 5
|
| Group 2 | Group 6
|
Group 3
|
Group 7 |
Group 4
|
Group 8 |