Talk:Singapore

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! =)

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)

Climate Table

Why doesn’t this article have a table in the Geography and climate section summarizing the average monthly high/low in temperature and the total precipitation per month. Such a table already exists in the article Geography and climate of Singapore, and it is entitled ‘Weather averages for Singapore’.

This table contains a basic summary of some of the most important climate variables for Singapore, and how they change throughout the year. The information that is currently in the Geography and climate section of this article is good, but doesn’t achieve this as well as the table does.

What do people think about including that table in this article? Joaq99 (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Addition of a part

I added a chunk about the British naval base in the "Japanese Occupation" part. Hope it works.Joshywawa (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive time, article issues

First, WOW, can we archive some talk here?

Second, this article is wrought with unverified claims and text that has a rather biased-seeming tone. If there are references for such claims, there ought to be citations. I find it difficult to believe, for example, that a sentence like this could escape citation or removal:

"Though general elections are free from irregularities and vote rigging, the PAP has been criticized for manipulating the political system through its use of censorship, gerrymandering, and civil libel suits against opposition politicians"

That is ONE example of several statements in the article that probably could be validated by references and are otherwise not NPOV or encyclopedic. I will stop by the article tonight and work on finding some references, but there's a larger cleanup task here for someone who is more knowledgeable. -- Forridean ^(T/C) 20:37, 18 August 2008 (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.

Important - Please update Singapore's Human Development Index Value (HDI)

Please update Singapore's HDI value as the main article shows the old value of 0.916. The new value is 0.922 with a green up arrow next to the value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.216.192 (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments that someone censored

This is not a good article. It is obsessed with the contemporary image of Singapore which has only a history of less than 50 years. Please include more history on Singapore, especially on history of Singapore as a Crown Colony like Hong Kong and Macau, its history before British colony and more about the previous Empires before that. There are articles about Singapore being the Center of a Thai/Indonesian Empire that had trading with the Phoenicians, the Persians and the Greeks. Many Wikipedians are fascinated by Singapore's history as a historical trading port, please include more pictures and information on it as well as information on Japanese occupation of Singapore. Otherwise, this article is exceptionally sanitised and dull. More pictures needed of colonial opium dens, whorehouses morphing into current casinos, Clarke Quay, as well as more pictures of Japanese war atrocities, prison cells, and more pictures of inter-racial mixing in Singapore, the different ethic groups like Peranakan, the different Malay, Indonesian, Chinese languages, its creole English called Singlish, Singdarin etc. Please work more to expand on this article to make it more interesting.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.117.143.29 (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

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.

The old Singapore used to be covered by a lot of forests before Raffles came Yun Zhen 14:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

If the PAP is doing this, they are doing a lousy job, particularly in the French [[1]] and German [[2]]versions of wikipedia. Please do not sue me for saying this.VK35 05:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, besides the standard items (Michael Fay, chewing gum, anti-gay and death penalty), anything special over there? --Vsion 06:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Etymology

sorry wasnt it raffles who came up with the name "singapura"? 129.100.195.111 (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 [3], 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)

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)

Democracy

NO discussion about Democracy is allowed in Singapore. Chinese Communists have parked their money in the Singapore dollar and fear the collapse of the Chinese yuan due to revolt of the working class. Why does Singapore not allow debate about it's Democracy? Singapore does not have a Democracy and is a State Run with people who must be in fear. People will never leave their money in a State of Fear as it's unsafe. Lack of ability to criticize a system is a socalist/communist state by definition. I wish the people of Singapore receive an independent voice which lacks colonialist elite / communist influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.154.63 (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is my notice to the person hiding behind the anon IP address above for adding such weasel words to this page, you are hereby advice to provide all the relevant sources for your alleged statement of "NO discussion about Democracy is allowed in Singapore" or it will be strike off this page. Also, I have submitted your IP address to the admins, this is done to make you provide a responsible edit and not make allegations or conspiracy into Wikipedia. Please note that we will not stand for baseless accusations within the scope of Wikipedia project's integrity or take unfounded allegation from irresponisble individuals such as yourself for presentation to the world. --Dave1185 (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

I've removed the statements regarding Singapore being authoritarian and having the highest per-capita execution rate in the world. I considered replacing "authoritarian" with less loaded terms such as "semi-democracy" or "illiberal democracy", but these terms are too vague.

I also don't see why a statistic on capital punishment belongs in an introduction: (1) the topic has already been dealt with in another section below, (2) using a high per-capita execution rate as evidence/support for Singapore's "authoritarian-ness" seems a bit sensationalist -- something like "...lacks a free press and...elections are manipulated by...", along with a source, would work better.

Meanwhile, I've added "(The) PAP dominates the political process...", along with Freedom House's country report on Singapore as a reference. Hopefully this is an acceptable and NPOV alternative! Leaf of Silver 14:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 [4]. --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)

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)

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 Singapore, 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)

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)

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)

Singaporean knows Chinese language,may i ask how many singaporean have been to China before? and singaporean knows English fluent also,How many singaporean have been to USA? Y not immigrate to USA?(What i meaning is not Singapore is not a good place to stay,but I know USA has more power. I am Chongqingnese,email me to j_dlsl@yahoo.com.ph) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnncff (talk • contribs) 15:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Yeah please put back the original section. This Wikipedia thing is So sanitized and boring.

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).

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)

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)

I recently corrected this. - Fayenatic london (talk)

Train services to Malaysia?

There's no mention of the KTM service to KL anywhere in the article or anything that mentions that Singapore is connected to Peninsula Malaysia with a train service. Is this deliberate? Is this not relevant in the Transport section? --Novelty 05:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the Transport section of the article and I saw nothing about the Johor-Singapore Causeway and the Malaysia-Singapore Second Link, let alone the train service. Besides that, the section is a little messy; the main article link immediately below the section header should link to Transport in Singapore, not Singapore Changi Airport. I had added about the causeway and the bridge as well as the train service, and did a little cleanup.--Joshua Chiew 10:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of new Wikipedians

Wikipedia:Citing sources. 121.6.50.240 12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

How is this relevant? - SpLoT // 12:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That anonymous editor's initial contributions were reverted by another user on the grounds that they were unsourced. I can't blame him for posting a link here as it takes a while to find your way around. - Fayenatic london (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any new users editing this article besides the anon himself. - SpLoT // 14:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too swift with editing wikis yet, but some child has vandalised the article in several places, including headings and something about 'cristal princess' or something? Someone may want to fix these..

Not to mention the addition of "i like poop!!!!!!!" to the box in the top right info box among the flag picture captions. Sorry, I don't know the terminology, but it's there if you look. i checked out the page and couldn't find it to edit out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.82.140.33 (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Name of Singapore during Japanese Occupation.

The name in the article is given as "Shonan". It should be "Syonan-to". I understand it means Light of the south.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syonan-to ```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.255.185.254 (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Damn, I didn't notice this post before sticking up that message on Shōnan below. Anyway, as I've stated below, the translation of "Light of the South" is utterly wrong, and as for the romanization, see this. Going by the standard Singaporean explanation of the name, which just attempts to literally translate the characters in the name, the "tō" should be left out (it means "island", and the Singaporean explanation leaves the island bit out of the name), but the Japanese explanation indicates that the tō probably should be left in. See below (About Shōnan) for more details. 203.116.91.80 05:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Shōnan" and "Syonan" are the same. They are just two different ways to romanize the Japanese name. The former is in Hepburn romanization, the latter is the Nihon-shiki or Kunrei-shiki. The convention on the English Wikipedia is to use the Hepburn romanization.--Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What have I done?} 14:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sports

I believe that the Sports section has been written unacceptably. "Soccer is the most popular sport here..." and "There are also millions..." have seemed to be weasel worded. Optakeover 07:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

False claim about Singapore being number 1

I removed a reference that Singapore has the highest number of executions per capita. This is not supported by this Amnesty International report for 2006. [[5]] Kuwait is 1 and Iran is 2. There's no mention of who is number 3 VK35 16:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Jews as Ethnicity?

I am a little concerned that Jews are listed as an ethnicity in the section of the same name, instead of under the religion section. Jews come in all shapes, sizes and ethnicities. If the statement refers to Caucasians, they should say so. I'll set this page to watch. If someone doesn't kick and scream about it, I will move the Jewish note to religion at the end of the day. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jews come in all religions too. I assume when the word is used in a section on ethnicity, it refers to ethnic Jews. --Dodo bird 16:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that tracks well. What, precisely, is an "ethnic Jew"? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Something like what is described here? We could add Judaism in the religion section and link the word Jew in the ethnicity section to Who_is_a_Jew?#.22Ethnic_Jew.22 to make it clearer. --Dodo bird 13:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it might be better to simply add the religious presence int he religion section, and remove the ethnic mention. If I caught it, I am guessing others might as well. Best to avoid the accusation of anti-semitism, even if unintended. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see this conversation when I reverted the recent edit that added the religious presence in the religion section. I reverted it per WP:WEIGHT guidance. Sources I could find (such as this one) indicates that the Jewish community in Singapore comprises only about 300 people; hardly enough to warrant a mention beyond the inclusive "...and others" in the sentence about religions.

My Jewish friends (including an atheist Jew) tell me that there's a Jewish culture and a Jewish religion, and you can be either one, or both, and still refer to yourself as "Jewish". -Amatulic 16:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the citation you list doesn't cite its sources, either. Speaking tot he fact that the Jews that the source cited listed are in fact prominent, it becomes notable to mention the presence of Judaism yet again. And all, respect due, the primary source represented by what your Jewish friends tell you isn't really a notable reference to someone outside your circle of friends. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's follow the list given in Census 2000, which does not include Judaism [6]. Most non-government descriptions have similar listing. If the emphasis is on demographics, then Judaism is usually not included. On the other hand, if the focus is on religious diversity, then Judaism might be included, usually by mentioning that there are a couple of synagogues in the country. --Vsion 19:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. Thank you. That's exactly what I did when I wrote the original sentence in this aricle about the religious demographics. So I hope Arcayne can understand why I object to giving undue weight to a religion that isn't even counted in the census. Hm, I notice Ba'hai got into the sentence too, and it isn't counted either. Time for some cleaning up.

The problem with sentences that contain lists, is that such lists tend to accumulate chaff from people who want their pet topic included. Let's keep it to a minimum. Non-notable religions don't need to be listed (Judaism is notable by itself, just not in the context of Singapore). -Amatulic 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I can deal with the removal (though I think it is a rather unfair characterization of myself to consider it a pet topic of mine). I just take issue with citing information that doesn't cite its own sources. It makes it unreliable, to my reckoning. And, as Judaism (and Jews) gets a bit more than its share of prejudice, it os importnat to be rather diligent to fairly represent the religion/people appropriately. As someone has cited the census, that is dandy. As someone has removed the Ba'hai reference as even less notable, it seems that due diligence has been done. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

I have brought this article to Good Article Review for review and possible delisting of its Good Article status. Coloane 05:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

About Shōnan

I was reading the Japanese version of this article when I came across this:

>>この後、日本による軍政が敷かれ、シンガポールは「昭南島（しょうなんとう）」と改名された。 (From 2.3 日本による占領 )

Translation: "After the Japanese army took control, Singapore was renamed 'Shōnantō'" (or 'Shōnan-tō', which means Shōnan Island, with the Shōnan already being explained in the English article)

>>なお、昭南島とは「昭和の時代に得た南の島」の意とされている。 (Also from 2.3 日本による占領 )

Translation: "This name was to mean 'southern island gained in the age of Shōwa'".

Doesn't this mean that the tō (island) bit is part of the name, making it Shōnantō?

Also, back when I was in school, the textbooks claimed that Shōnan (they romanized it as Syonan, though) meant "Light of the South", and the Japanese article refutes this completely, so shouldn't that be mentioned as well? The textbooks may have been corrected since then, though, so someone would have to check.

203.116.91.80 05:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that "romanisation" and "romaji" are different. Romaji is Japanese translation of Japanese to English by Japanese, romanisation is the same, but is done by English. "Shōnantō" is romaji, "Syonan-to" is romanisation. --203.117.28.221 03:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Romanji"? Never heard of the term. Sorry to be blunt, but do you bloody know what you're talking about? Because romanization is the transliteration of Japanese and rōmaji is what the bloody English alphabet is called in Japanese. 203.116.91.80 04:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to push your point if you do not study Japanese. You only make yourself look ignorant. Arigato. --121.6.64.153 15:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

糞ワロタｗｗｗｗｗお前こそ日本語分かってんのか？氏ねよクズがｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗ I'm Japanese and the other guy is right and you're just being stupid. Arigatoとかｗｗｗｗｗｗマジで氏ねｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗ 58.146.170.158 (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

俺、日本人のハーフですがなにか？ Also, some nonsense that's totally wrong is stated. I point out that it's nonsense. Thus I'm ignorant. Bright chap, aren't you? 203.116.91.80 02:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As I have noted sections above, "Shōnan" and "Syonan" are the same. They are just two different ways to romanize the Japanese name. The former is in Hepburn romanization, the latter is the Nihon-shiki or Kunrei-shiki. For your arguments about Rōmaji and romanization, I agree that the both are not the same; the former means the Roman (Latin) alphabet, the latter means to represent sounds in a language written in another writing system by using the Roman (Latin) alphabet. For the anon (203.116.91.80) above, please be courteous when posting on talk pages.--Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What have I done?} 11:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Biased Text

Removed biased text "Despite wealth and a high standard of living". Does it mean that wealthy countries with high standards of living cannot execute people? It is clearly biased text added in by some Human Rights person. --203.117.28.221 03:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In virtually every other wealthy, developed nation in the world, the death penalty has been eliminated. The exception is, of course, the United States. Singapore's extensive use of the death penalty is an outlier: the United States executes approximately the same absolute number of people per year as Singapore, but Singapore's population is only about 1/75th the US population. The point of the phrase "Despite wealth and a high standard of living" is, first of all, to flow with the paragraph that describes Singapore's affluence. This makes the point that Singapore's use of the death penalty is remarkable in the developed world. It's not passing a judgment, but it's showing something very unique about Singapore. You could in fact read it to say that perhaps Singapore's economic and social success is due in part to strict crime laws and use of the death penalty-- that's for the reader to judge. This sentence is not biased in its earlier form, which has been part of the article for quite awhile. --Maxsht9 05:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I repeat my question. Does it mean that execution is the act of uncivilised people with low standards of living? The United States, a world superpower does not ban the death penalty. Neither does Russia, an ex-superpower. Neither does China, a rising superpower. Does it also mean that since it has been in the article all the while, it is not biased? Sooner or later someone will pick it out. I personally do not see the relation between "high standards of living" and the "death penalty". If it is for the reader to judge, state the facts "Singapore has a high execution rate" and let the reader judge. The use of the term "despite" leads readers to subtley believe that execution and high standards of living do not go together and therefore Singapore is bad or weird. --121.6.83.161 13:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I also do not see the sentence "Despite wealth and a high standard of living, the United States is the 6th highest in carrying out executions" in the article about the United States, which is definitely wealthier and has higher standards of living than Singapore. If you claim those words are not biased, please add them into the pages of all similar countries as well as Singapore. --121.6.83.161 13:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I would like to remind about WP:POINT. Please don't put it to test. I agree that we should simply state the fact that Singapore executes criminals and let the readers judge.--Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What have I done?} 14:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In order for this article to claim there is an inverse correlation between standard of living and execution rate, such a claim must be sourced. It isn't. To imply such a correlation exists is a non-sequitur. Therefore I have removed this sentence from the article. The source from 2004 is woefully out of date anyway; the most recent Amnesty International source from 2007-07-08 says only that Singapore has "possibly" the highest per-capita execution rate, and says nothing about wealth or standard of living.[7]. The most recent total annual results (for 2006) state that "Kuwait had the highest number of executions per capita of population, followed by Iran."[8] Stating that Singapore executes criminals is sufficient.

Singapore is definitely not #1, nor is standard of living an issue in this context. -Amatulic 21:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As usual, short-sighted "Human Rights" groups look at the small picture of execution and fail to look at the much bigger picture of what happens without execution. But this probably isn't the correct place to discuss. Sorry for babbling. Sigh. Also, the Amnesty International link implies that the death penalty is for various but unspecified "drug offences". This is incorrect. The death penalty is only for trafficking of drugs. There is also no mention of the death penalty for other drug-unrelated offences. Amazing how "reliable" sources can twist words in their favour, eh? Thanks for the support in removal anyway. :D --121.6.64.153 12:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Advertising?

Does this count as advertising for Mercer Human Resource Consulting? (and should be removed)

"In terms of quality of life, the Cost of Living Survey conducted by Mercer Human Resource Consulting (2007) ranked Singapore 5th most expensive country in Asia and 14th most expensive country to live in the world.[4]"

I say this considering the article on Mercer on wikipedia has the following Discussion on it(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercer_Human_Resource_Consulting):

"The creator of this article would do well to closely read the following:

"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam."

This article could have been lifted directly out of a promotional pamphlet produced by this company. As far as I'm concerned, articles like this should be removed on sight."

I agree with you. I removed material from the Mercer page; most of it was written like an advertisement. Then when I was reviewing this sentence in the article, I noticed that it presumes a high cost of living has some direct relevance to quality of life. Intuitively, I'd say high cost of living countries tend to have higher quality of life because they are wealthier. However, this connection is indirect and speculative. Other attributes, like low infant mortality and health care access also correlate with quality of life; saying "In terms of quality of life, Singapore is ranked 4th in health care accessibility" would be equally inappropriate. Quality of life statistics are probably readily available.--Maxsht9 12:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please remove commercial, advertising (including links to sites with ads). This is to ensure consistency and fairness to everyone. Wikipedia should not be an avenue for advertisement, or you will open a floodgate for even more spams.--Zragon

"a large-scale public housing programme"

Anyone in Singpoore, could you please explain a little bit more about the characteristics of this program?. Thank you.

look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDB MuRocks 03:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC) hope it helps

Delisting of Singapore from GA class

Following a clear consensus by reviewers this article has been delisted from the GA group. The result of that review can be found here.--VS ^talk 07:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

ArticleHistory template

It's always good to use Template:ArticleHistory to keep track of things like peer reviews, good article nominations, FACs, etc etc. I've added the older peer review, the GAN, and the GAR in the template. But I found that the article actually went through five FACs between 2005 and 2006 (failing each one, it seems, because I don't see this article in the former featured article list). the ArticleHistory template needs to have old article ids and specific dates to display correctly, and I don't really have the time to track them all down in this article's history. Template:ArticleHistory has instructions on what the needed information is. If anybody is interested, please add the five FACs into the template.

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore/Archive
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore/Archive 2
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore/Archive 3
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore/Archive 4

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like this page to be protected!

Hi all, I feel this page should be protected from anonymus editors and some new wikipedians. This is because a large chunk of the article has actually been deleted by some people we do not know. Such as the "economy" section, the growth forecasts of the first and second quarters have been deleted. Thanks. fatty 04:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to see this excellent article protected from anonymous and new Wikipedians. It is highly complete and well researched, for the most part. Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contributions)} 04:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, until some new wikipedians come and edit the Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zheliel (talk • contribs) 00:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Way too many links

This is an excellent article, but it's unnecessarily hard to read because it's crowded with blue words. Someone has, doubtless thinking they were being a good gnome, gone through and linked almost everything imaginable. I've spent almost two hours removing unrelated and repetitious links ("Malay" must have been linked eight times). When I get my breath back, I'll come back and rip out some more. There are lots of excellent and pertinent links, either because they are specifically related to Singapore or they are reasonably likely to be of special interest to someone reading about Singapore. But linking every single date and all types of commonly understood words, just because they have a related article in Wikipedia, is tiresome in the extreme. In any article, there should be a reasonable likelihood that clicking on it will lead you to something other than a mundane article on table tennis or the chilli disambiguation page. Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contributions)} 05:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Singapore City cf. Singapore (state)

The infobox said that Singapore City is the largest city in Singapore. I've removed this because it's the only city in Singapore. Leaving it as it was could lead readers to assume the state contains cities other than Singapore City. Further, is it not true that the city and the state are co-terminous? Is there any part of Singapore state that is not a part of Singapore City? -- JackofOz 06:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Co-terminous - for the most part, yes. Unless you exclude outlying islands like Pulau Tekong or Pulau Ubin or the disputed Pedra Branca - all of which are pretty far from the city centre and the conurbation that is the main island. (These islands do not have significant built-up areas and thus should not be classed as 'urban' areas.) That said, as a fraction of the total land area of Singapore, these islands are of minor relevance, so I agree with your changes with the foregoing caveats in mind. 220.255.49.34 07:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have seen McDonald's drink cups on which a woman's hometown is printed "Singapore, Singapore". 216.179.123.198 (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't you agree that Sentosa is a pretty important island? It isn't the city exactly, so... Joshywawa (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sentosa is a rather important island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zheliel (talk • contribs) 00:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

International rankings

Do there really need to be quite so many international rankings? It certainly isn't fair to call some of them "major". For now, I'll remove some of the more trivial ones:

• Accenture: Leadership in Customer Service: [9] ranked 1 out of 22 countries
• Reader's Digest: Manners - 31st out of 35 cities (see http://www.rd.com/content/good-manners/2/)
• ECA International: World's most expensive city for rental accommodation [10], ranked 15 out of 92 countries
• World Economic Forum: Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index [11], ranked 8 out of 124 countries
• Mercer Human Resource Consulting: [12], ranked 14 out of 143 cities

Actually, I wonder whether the transportation ones belong here, they aren't actually about the state of Singapore, but about an airline, an airport and a container port. Bistromathic 19:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Reads like a corporate brochure with all that puffery. 220.255.114.234 01:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

2007 Pirates Of The Caribbean at world's end has used a "Singapore" set!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.183.81 (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Prepping for veropedia

The simplest fixes first — here's a dump of the parser, explaining technical fixes mandatory before it can be accepted. Content, we have to discuss. Dumping now: --Rifleman 82 13:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

User: Rifleman 82 Ignore warning: IsDebug: 0 wiki: wikipedia Domainending: org Language: en Article: Singapore Revision ID

Do another search Current passed pages Try again

Getting needed pages: Singapore is not in our Database Checking for fair use images. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fair Use

Checking all links in article..

Bad links

http://www.istana.gov.sg Errorcode was: 404 http://www2.mha.gov.sg Errorcode was: 404 http://www.mas.gov.sg Errorcode was: 404 http://www.singstat.gov.sg Errorcode was: 404 http://app.feedback.gov.sg Errorcode was: 404 http://www.channelnewsasia.com Errorcode was: 404 http://www.singstat.gov.sg Errorcode was: 404 http://www.singstat.gov.sg Errorcode was: 404

Checking for Cleanup categories..

Cleanup categories

Category:All articles with unsourced statements

Checking for Cleanup templates..

Cleanup Templates

156 Checking all links in article..

Disambiguation and redirect Links

Note, disambiguation links should be changed to the exact link, redirects can be left alone.

Indigenous is a disambig. Hawker is a disambig. National_Basketball_League is a disambig. Sri_Mariamman_Temple is a disambig. Toll is a disambig.

Checking regex blacklist...

Blacklisted regex

</ref>. found in the article. A ref appears before a period, comma, or semi-colon. Please move the reference to after the period, comma, or semi-colon.

Checking slang list...

Grammar and words

Please fix the instances if it is approprate to do so. This should be 90% of cases.

Checking frequency list...

Grammar and words

Checking sentences...

Sentences

Please look into fixing the following, though you can still upload past it (it is recommended that you try to fix any legitimate errors).

long sentence (60) : Singapore (Malay: Singapura; Chinese: 新加坡; pinyin: Xīnjiāpō; Tamil: சிங்கப்பூர், Ciŋkappūr), officially the Republic of Singapore (Malay: Republik Singapura; Chinese: 新加坡共和国; pinyin: Xīnjiāpō Gònghéguó; Tamil: சிங்கப்பூர் குடியரசு, Ciŋkappūr Kudiyarasu), is an island nation located at the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula. long sentence (85) : The Japanese renamed Singapore Shōnantō (昭南島, Shōnantō?), from Japanese "Shōwa no jidai ni eta minami no shima" ("昭和の時代に得た南の島", "Shōwa no jidai ni eta minami no shima"?), or "southern island obtained in the age of Shōwa", and occupied it until the British repossessed the island on 12 September 1945, a month after the Japanese surrender. long sentence (66) : The educational system features a non-compulsory three-year kindergarten, followed by six-year primary education, students take the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), 4 years of secondary education, a further set of examinations are taken which determine their individual subject mastery and which kind of tertiary education they can pursue, such as junior colleges or Millennia Institute, which provide a 2-year or 3-year pre-university education route to the universities. long sentence (81) : However, just outside of Raffles Place, and throughout the rest of the downtown core, there is a large scattering of pre-WWII buildings - some going back nearly as far as Raffles, as with the Empress Place Building, built in 1827.[citation needed] Many classical buildings were destroyed during the post-war decades, up until the 1990s, when the government started strict programs to conserve the buildings and areas of historic value.

Checking Spelling..

Spelling

Please check and make sure the following are spelled right. Items on the left side of the arrow are potential misspellings and items on the right side are potential corrections

StatisticsExternal links found: 92 Wikilinks found: 1416 Sentences found: 355 Number of characters  : 49451 Number of words  : 6985 Percent of complex words  : 23.88 Average syllables per word : 1.8773 Number of sentences  : 345 Average words per sentence : 20.2464 Number of text lines  : 191 Number of blank lines  : 1 Number of paragraphs  : 123

READABILITY INDICES

Fog  : 17.6504 Flesch  : 27.4646 Flesch-Kincaid  : 14.4583

This article cannot be uploaded. Please fix the problems and try again.

Better view of Singapore

I have postioned to the top and altered the size of an image to give a better view of Singapore.Lustead (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Sports School

Is this important enough to be included as its own section? If so it could do with a bit or a rewrite

CaptinJohn (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should deserve its own section, although it does deserve mentioning and has its significance explained. Mhching (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Registry of Marriages?

Someone has proposed merging Registry of Marriages into this article. I disagree because there is not enough space in the main article as it is, and also because to include such information here would bloat the Demographics section unnecessarily. Thoughts? Pegasus «C¦T» 15:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No merge; unrealistic to move the content in here. --Vsion (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Alice.S 07:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

why?

why does it say 'f**k it' at the bottom of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.71.142.176 (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Singapore

Hi, there is a need for an article about the History of the Jews in Singapore. At the present time there are articles about the Chesed-El Synagogue and the Maghain Aboth Synagogue in Singapore that have some facts that may help such an article. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Time Zone Problem

I noticed that this page says the timezone is called SST. When clicking on it, the page opening says SGT. Which is correct? If both, the opening page should mention both (whether one is official and the other not.)

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Wilke (talk • contribs) 09:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the abbreviation in Singapore Standard Time to SST, as it rightfully should. 리지강.wa.au _talk 20:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I kind of agree that this article is in need of a good brushing up. I will like to post a query on why the Singapore Sports School is mentioned here. i do see a plausible link under Sports but instead of a good discussion on our strengths, history and perhaps ongoing issues of raising sportsmen and women, we get an entry on the Singapore Sports School as a topic with its own topic heading. I think this section needs some adjustment from someone who knows Singapore's sports scene well.Themechacat (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

source from 2006 is outdated

I already wrote down the reason in edit summary why I removed the source as it is from the year 2006. You should write down the reference from the year of 2007. Coloane (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Two points:

1. Your edit removed the relevant inline citation placed by Huaiwei but left the claim: "It (Singapore) was rated as the world's best airport in 2006 by Skytrax". I could understand it if you thought that the Skytrax claim was outdated and removed both claim and source, but to remove just the source of the claim seemed a little inexplicable.
2. if you have a more up-to-date assertion then we could all have understood it if you had replaced the (outdated?) claim (including a more recent citation) yourself rather than thrice cancelling the work of your fellow editors without providing a cogent reason in the edit summary. Thanks for raising the issue here in the correct place (albeit a little late since I see that you have already undone the work of your fellow editors again...) Alice^✉ 09:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate, but a check on Coloane's editing history reveals a little of his background on matters pertaining to Singapore (less than a month in wikipedia, and this is his 20th edit: [13]). His stance towards this country is kinda obvious, in particular his comments in [14].--Huaiwei (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I also removed Papua New Guinea, Morocco, Denmark, etc from the GA list. Why didn't you mention them? You are still holding the grudge and mentioned what I talked about. I already apologised. For the reference, why don't you put year of 2007 for the ranking of international airports? you simply want to show Singapore rate No. 1 in 2006. It is quite misleading because it missed putting the data of year 2007. And now the year 2007 will be gone soonest. Coloane (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my bad. So when did you nominate those articles? Didnt notice them amongst your earliest edits, which singled just one entry - Singapore. I must point out that it is rather unusual for new users to actually ask for an FAR this early in their editorial stint. I also noticed some of your earliest edits such as [15] [16], which seem to stand out like a sore thumb since most of your edits are related to Macau or Hong Kong, which is understandable given the locality where you are from. As for the ranking, big deal. Singapore was rated no.1 for the first time in 2006, and the text now reflects that accurately (admittedly, no one updated the list since the latest result, and I overlooked that as well.) Kindly do not further insult Singaporeans with comments like "you simply want to show Singapore rate No. 1 in 2006." Not many shares the same maturity level as yourself. Can I conversely ask if your insistence on "updating" that number is because "you simply want to show Hong Kong rate No. 1 in 2007."?--Huaiwei (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not object to write down up-to-date info of 2007 if Singapore C I were rated No.1 in 2007? again, I already apologized and I have no intention to insult Singaporean or other people. There are no rivals between Singapore and other places. I just don't understand why do you emphasis on it? Coloane (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That Changi won the award for the first (and only time) in 2006 is of course of greater relevance than its second place position, which it held five times since the first award in 2001. Now of course we could write all these in that paragraph, but is this too much detail for such a short paragraph?--Huaiwei (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Shall I suggest a compromise? Mention that Changi Airport was ranked as the world's best airport in 2006 and was second in all the other years. Consistently finishing second does indicate that Changi Airport is one of the best in the world, if not the best. However, do not mention any rivalry between Changi Airport and Hong Kong International Airport, as such a claim is original research, unless you can find references that explicitly mention a rivalry. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The current version already omits mention on HKIA, so that issue is already solved. As for what constitutes "best", perhaps a switch to referring to the airport being a consistent multi-award winner as sourced from [17] and already mentioned in the Singapore Changi Airport article (para 4) may be appriopriate. This helps to reduce perceived advertising of one single award.--Huaiwei (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out that Coloane has also chosen to wikiwar over at Singapore Changi Airport, which is one of the most ridiculous ever. Text on Changi's efforts to keep itself updated to remain competitive with newer airports, which was derived from a source [18] is continuously being changed to [19] when the later says nothing on this. Coloane insists on this change for no better reason than "the web site clearly shows the newest ranking of airports, I didn't make any mistake. Singapore C I rated No. 2 in 2007". The sourced text was on airport upgrading, and not on award results, something I reminded repeatedly and which he chooses to ignore. I request for community assistance to talk some sense into this impulsive lad.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Coloane, stop baiting Huaiwei and edit-warring with him, Alice and myself, or I shall request admin intervention. Huaiwei, please do not let Coloane bait or provoke you. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Hildanknight. Check out [20] thou, which is kinda ironic!--Huaiwei (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

An anon has made another reversion to the Singapore Changi Airport article [21]. Perhaps an IP check is needed soon.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Malay Fighter Pilots, Military Role Determined by Race

"there were no Malay fighter pilots as of 1990, for example, and it is unclear whether there are any today."

• "The New Paper ran a commentary, pictures of a Malay lieutenant-colonel and air force pilot and data showing increasing numbers of Malay officers in the Singapore military." -- Reuters. February 11, 1999; http://www.singapore-window.org/sw99/90211re.htm
• English Transcript of Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's interview with Berita Harian Published on 23 and 24 November 2003; http://app.mfa.gov.sg/pr/read_content.asp?View,3676,#

BH: What do you think of our first Malay fighter pilot achievement?

DPM: I am happy for him, and proud of him. LTA Mohammad Yusri has made it based on his own merit, and if he continues to work hard should have a bright career ahead.

• "We have Malay pilots, commandos and air defence personnel." -- Col Benedict Lim, Director of Public Affairs, Ministry of Defence; http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/263407/1/.html

"The role they play is determined by their race;"

• "The SAF is a microcosm of Singapore society. Just as we are committed to meritocracy as a basic principle for Singapore, meritocracy is a guiding principle for the SAF. What this means is that so long as a serviceman is committed to Singapore, dedicated to the SAF, and capable of performing the job that is required, his appointment and advancement will be based on qualification and merit." -- Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong; http://app.mfa.gov.sg/pr/read_content.asp?View,3676,#
• "Stressing that integration in the SAF would proceed in tandem with nation-building, Col Lim added that there are a good number of Malay SAF officers, some with higher degrees, whose studies were sponsored by the SAF, and whether a Malay SAF officer makes it to a higher appointment depends solely on merit." -- Mindef responds to criticism over inexperienced scholars, soft soldiers, status of Malays; http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/263407/1/.html

I would be removing the lines in quotes from the article based on the above. --Adrian Teh (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion you made. However, if sources support the contention that prior to 1990, Malays or other nationalities/ethnicities ("race" is incorrect terminology) were excluded from being fighter pilots, then that is worth mentioning in the context of the military's improved demographic cross section. Prior to Yugoslavia breaking up, only Serbs were allowed to be officers, so a policy of segregation would hardly make Singapore unique in this regard. -Amatulic (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Alice^✉ 21:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A historical snippet of National Service in Singapore with regards to Malays can be found in Malay factor in national service, The Star (Malaysia), February 10, 2002. There is quite a bit of historical information in there and personally I think it would be more appropriate in the History section of National Service in Singapore instead of the main Singapore article. --Adrian Teh (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at Singapore Armed Forces#Manpower, which provides several solid sources regarding the SAF's discriminatory policies towards Malays, including a juicy quote from Loong-Loong. Jpatokal (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Very Poor Quality

The quality of this article is pretty in bad shape. I don't know the reason why someone removed almost all tags of citation need and vague. "Inline citation" is not an excuse, if so, reference is not necessary anymore. Information is basically outdated. Peacock is common everywhere in this article (of course including the article of Changi Airport), plus pos. and neg. statements are not in balance. Dead/invalid links are also common as well like: No. 3, 36, 59, 73, 81 or others. It makes references from these statements basically senseless. Coloane (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

They probably removed the tags you scattered because they thought they were inappropriately placed, unhelpful, in error (or a mixture of these and other reasons). Equally, it may have been because they are familiar with your abrasive editing style or perceive (rightly or wrongly) a conflict of interest with your usual interest in Hong Kong and Macau leading to an hyperbole of negativity.

I don't understand your point about " "Inline citation" is not an excuse, if so, reference is not necessary anymore." As an exception, could you write this in Portuguese or Chinese (traditional) (or email me) so I can try and understand what you're on about?

I would suggest providing counterbalancing references on this discussion page if you think our article is biased or "peacock words" and then I (or other editors) can insert them in the text with appropriate English wording.

Thanks for your interest in making this a better article. Alice^✉ 21:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alice for your timely response. I'm not one of the regular contributors here but I was recently alerted by an automated program which I designed & currently experimenting to detect, analyse & report on any troll-like behavioural pattern on targeted articles during my anti-vandals/trolls watch. In short, it's designed to throw up a lot of dirt quickly & easily on such individuals by trawling on their user's logs which will highlight key acts that will generate a profile rating & alerts if nec. Such reports will allow me to take prompt & appropriate actions on the article or individual concerned. The citation/vague tags removed were done with appropriate edit comments, wiki-linked to supporting articles, affected sections rewritten for clarity during my subsequent verification checks. I believe my follow-up edits have been met with an implicit consensus as there were no reverts or objections by the majority of watchful regulars & admins earlier. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Simplified Chinese name of Singapore?

Chinese the language divides into Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Chinese_character

Why is it wrong to put Simplified Chinese name of Singapore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profession (talk • contribs) 04:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Because in this case the characters are identical for both Simplified and Traditional Chinese. Hence there is no need to be so specific. b3virq3b (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In the phrase "新加坡共和囯" the Simplified character of 囯 is different to the Traditional character of 國. Please check on the similar usage of this character in articles such as Taiwan and People's Republic of China. Profession (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Profession is right. The "guo" ("country") character is different in Simplified Chinese (国) and Traditional Chinese (國). Besides that, Singapore officially uses Simplified Chinese. I am changing the template used in the article to note "Simplified Chinese". --Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What have I done?} 12:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition to that, I have changed back the Chinese character of 新加坡 to just Chinese since it's identical in both Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese. Also I have changed the 新加坡共和国 (Chinese) to 新加坡共和国 (Simplified Chinese) in the row beyond the flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profession (talk • contribs) 14:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

section organisation

Methinks it would be best if "architecture" and "resources" got absorbed into other sections -- perhaps into the culture and economy sections respectively. As a city article as well as a country article, it might deserve an architecture section, but can we get beyond trite propagandish statements like, "The architecture of Singapore is varied, reflecting the ethnic build-up of the country?" The architecture of a lot of countries are varied ... ;-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Singapore sports school scepticism

Does it need a separate subsection? There's more about the school than the whole higher education system! Surely one sentence with a link to the sports school article would be enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.246.240.14 (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Singapore word origin

Singapore comes from Malay Singapura, “Lion-city,”. the cited text mentions Singapore comes from Malay Singapora, “Lion-city,” but it is possible that one element of its name had a more distant original source. Pora comes from Sanskrit puram, “city, fortress,” and is related to Greek polis, “citadel, city.” Singa– comes from Sanskrit siha, “lion,” and is familiar to us in the name Singh, which all male Sikhs use as at least one of their personal names. Interestingly, siha is probably related to Swahili simba, “lion,” but since lions are native to Asia as well as Africa, it is not known whether the word came into India from Africa or the other way around, or if both are from a third source.

Sanskrit and swahili are mentioned as alternative *distant* sources from which the word *may* have derived....

This is why I've changed Sanskrit to Malay...

(In a lot of languages including Tamil (one of the official languages) Singam -> Lion Puram -> City) That doesn't mean the root of the word singapore is from all these languages)

Mugunth^{(ping me!!!,contribs)} 15:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, Parameswara is also a Hindu prince, who would have close association with traders from India. Malays is also fully aware of the difference of the two animals and they have different name and title. Singa (Lion - king of the beast) and Harimau (Tiger - warrior of the jungle) in Malay language. This knowledge would have easily come from traders from Arabs (from Africa trade), India (Pillars of Asoka), and China (Lion dance). Yosri (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Virtual Reality Tour of Singapore Arampan (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)(Aram Pan)

I'm working on a website that brings visitors on a Virtual Reality Tour of Singapore.

www.singaporevr.com [22]

There is not much VRs right now but I'm growing the collection weekly. Website was launched 20th Feb 2008

If the moderators of the Singapore Wiki find it useful, I hope that it can be added as an external link

Spam

Somebody spammed the "Colonial Rule" section. Stevv (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it Stevv (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Crime

It would be nice to have a "Crime and law enforcement" section in the article. Singapore has made headlines several times over the past four decades about their laws, crime rates, etc. It would be nice to have something here about it. WikiDon (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion is good but as per context-wise & depth, it would be more appropriate to add the suggested section in the 'Singapore Police Force' article instead. Besides, the Singapore article is very much 'bloated' at nearly 100kb in size now [23]. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is a very good suggestion, considering that I was still pondering about what next to add into the SPF page. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Once the suggested section is ready, made a reference in the Singapore article & wiki-link it to the SPF article then. Kindly note that this new section may be highly susceptible to heated debates or vandalism esp by those who aren't impressed with our local tough laws & policing which I encountered during my overseas stays & travels. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Think I would have to patrol the SPF page more often then. Oh boy! --Dave1185 (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If one is to check out the history logs & the edit comments (usually highly provocative [24]) clearly, it's no brainer to all how often the Singapore article & its related articles are been vandalised on a regular basis. To add insult to injury, even our legitimate discussion on this talk page was not spared! [25] It's no surprise to one that most of the IP vandals come from a certain region too. Besides contending with such folks, we still have to face with persistent Wiki trolls & POV crusaders (some make no bones of their actions being known}, where quite a number of our high profile articles were degraded (even GA class) or even deleted (on 'notability' grounds) en mass previously. They can fool some people (even the admins at WP:ANI!) but not all the people all the time! I strongly believe in the Law of Karma & it's just a matter of time these folks, and even the hard-core ones (Example 1), get their just desserts or 'RIP' one day (Example 2). -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"Self-government"

What does it mean to say that the PAP has won every election since "self-government" in 1959? Does that mean independence? Or were they ungoverned before then? Mookrit (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As Britain's former Crown Colony in SE Asia, Singapore was administered by the British for 144 years. "Self-government" refers to the status when the British granted the elected PAP in 1959, the power to govern S'pore except on foreign affairs and national defence matters. The self-government status ended when S'pore merged with the Federation of Malaysia in Sep 1963. On 9 Aug 1965, Singapore gained self independence after our separation from Malaysia as a result of political ideology clash and worsening racial tensions then. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

BRAVO! BRAVO! I couldn't have said it better myself. Cheers. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Article is too long

The article at present stands at 96 KB, which is very close to the limit of 100 KB ("Almost certainly should be divided"). The advice given at the 'article length page' is that writers should breaking up the main article into respective shorter articles elsewhere. The politics of Singapore is certainly too long, FTA and currency is not necessary in the main article. There's no need for such detailed write-up on the military here when there is a perfectly good article devoted to it. One could go on and on. There's no need to put in every single thing about Singapore in this main article. Please consider carefully what to ax off and what to leave remaining. 165.21.154.69 (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2008 (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.

"Danger Keep Out" Picture

The Chinese in that picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DangerKeepOut.jpg) is in Traditional Chinese, is it not? Notice the character "開", which is in Traditional Chinese (Simplified Form is "开")... I think it should be replaced. Just a suggestion. Makeru (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a terrible suggestion. Why don't you go to Singapore yourself and "correct" the sign, rather than complain about an image that's factually true? Oh yeah, Wikipedia is all about "notability" and "being encyclopedic", not facts.

Seems authentic. I do believe I've seen it being in traditional before. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

But isn't it that Simplified Chinese is the standard in Singapore? So I think that picture should be replaced with a picture similar to this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Quadrilingual_danger_sign_-_Singapore_%28gabbe%29.jpg), because it is in Simplified Chinese... Makeru (talk) 06:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

While simplified Chinese is the official script, traditional script is still often used, especially in signboards and banners for shops, schools, etc. Perhaps, because some people find it more aesthetically pleasing.

It is possible that that signboard was simply made by an old stencil, or the stencil was made by an old die, pre- or during the the transition to simplified Chinese.

Furthermore, despite what Simplified Chinese says, I recall that Malaysia was still using traditional Chinese as recently as 10 years ago, maybe up to the present day. Malaysia does a lot of work for Singapore, and it is likely that the sign stencils were made there.

Either way, nobody in Singapore bats an eyelid if the sign were in traditional Chinese. I won't lose sleep, whichever image is used.--Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK then. Thanks for hearing me out... it'll still be great though if the pic be replaced... just a suggestion ^_^ Makeru (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be great, and it's clearly not "just a suggestion".

Why fix something if it isn't broken? 聪明就好，不好太过聪明。。。 Kiang dio ho, mai gei kiang! --Dave1185 (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputes

The dispute with Malaysia needs a better source. It might be since I'm not from Singapore and don't really know the Singaporean media culture, but "Singapore Window" (http://www.singapore-window.org/) doesn't exactly seam like a reliable source. It's not even on Wikipedia. Glovestealer (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly and precisely, and I quote you: "doesn't exactly seam like a reliable source. It's not even on Wikipedia"...? The source of news for the site is from Reuters, I don't see any problem with that, do you? --Dave1185 (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a second hand source. I can put anything on the internet and say it's from Reuters, CNN or God, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Glovestealer (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It will be good if we can find more reliable sources, maybe direct quotes from Reuters or governmental sources. But before we find contradictory information to the content that comes from a more reliable source, the content should stay.Mhching (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur, I never meant to imply that the content should be removed, although I think a more reliable source would be in place. I would find one myself, but as I've said I'm not all that familiar with Singaporean media. Glovestealer (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Due to the page being vandalised again just after the last protection, I have requested and succeeded in getting it to be protected again from persistent vandals for another six months. Please note, thank you. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Singaporean Wikipedia?

Does anyone here know of an exclusively Singaporean Wikipedia? I recall coming across a wikipedia that was not wikipedia.org, but was a wikipedia with a Singaporean URL, but I don't recall what the address was. I have searched but cannot find it. It was designed to be a wikipedia exclusively for Singaporeans. I would like to look at it again, if only I can find it. Thanks in advance to anyone who might be able to point me in the right direction. (And sorry in advance for not speaking about this article). --RisingSunWiki 18:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia.sg is a domain parker, so that is pretty much nothing. But there is no wikipedia that is dedicated to only Singapore. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There used to be, because I saw it; I just can't remember the URL. --RisingSunWiki 15:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What about http://sg.wikipedia.org? Bjelleklang - talk 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not it. The site I'm thinking of is in English. --RisingSunWiki 10:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The 'en' and 'sg' prefixes of Wikipedias refer to its language medium, not its national focus. Please realise this. There are no country-oriented Wikipedias with the "wikipedia.org" domain name. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 12:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Haven for Chinese-Indonesian white collar criminals?

When is this unflattering little fact about to be inserted? I quote: [26]

In case you missed it- I'll keep coming back for a friendly chat.Starstylers (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

When you can show that this "fact" can be proven in accordance to WP:OR and WP:NPOV, and that this "fact" should be significant enough to be planted in the main country article.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: With due diligence, pse take a closer look at the community response on the initiator's talkpage and his edit history to see whether it's worth your while to engage in another ad hominen debate here. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note that his actions on my talk page has resulted in his BLOCK following a series of personal attacks on three other editors as well as a string of disruptive edits and copyvios. Do you believe in karma now? --Dave1185 (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply: To all practising Buddhists, we do believe in the Law of Karma (& our guardian Devas too) & always strive to be mindful of our words & actions, so as not to cause any possible harm to others & faced its ugly consequences later. Since he refuses to heed the communitiy warnings & persisted with his malicious attacks on numerous editors with impunity, I knew his days are 'numbered' soon (I was expecting within the next 5 days) but still proceeded to post a message in order to spell out clearly the unwholesome acts he's causing so far, & the possible consequences that he may faced hoping he may relent next. Afterwards, I started to do the 'countdown' to see how soon his 'doom day' will come - it was finally realised two days later! Looking at the tone of attacks in the edit history of our Singapore article previously (I initiated a request for semi-protection earlier), I'll not be surprised that the previous POV edits or vandalism committed anonymously, were likely committed by the likes of such detractors or their sympathetic supporters too. At times, I'm rather disappointed by the SGpedia community poor abilitiy to detect or deal with these hardcore disruptors. As such, I hope to help by posting timely 'early warnings' , in order to cast a spotlight on them to elicit a closer check & follow-ups, esp those with admin powers, to nip the problem once & for all for the common good of Wikipedia in the long run. Amituofo -- Aldwinteo (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Aldwinteo, it was actually one day later... He was blocked by Admin Toddst1 on 20:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC). Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Two days, not one, as my 'countdown' has already began from the day of my first message to him on 24 July 2008. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Climate section

Hi. I noticed that there's an unsourced "fact" in the geography and climate section on the maximum wind speed being recorded in May 2007 being about 150 km/h. I have done a quick Google search and found no proof to this. Perhaps it should be removed. 222.165.56.171 (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• It is done, I have removed that factless claim. Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Shanmugam Murugesu

The hanging of Shanmugam Murugesu in 2005 surely ranks as a major historical event in Singapore. There is a separate page for him here but there should be some mention on the main page.Ykral (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I was rather amused & even felt incredulous by such a posting here, along with its provocative header earlier. Does the same rationale apply also for the numerous previous cases, such as this much publicised case in 2005 too? Did you know that S'pore has been hanging convicted drug traffickers since its Independence at our famous 'holiday chalet' in Changi for decades now? Fyi, Singapore is not the only country that hanged convicted traffickers for a kilo or less (min 15mg for heroin) of banned substances today. Just across the causeway, our neighbour, Malaysia, has similar penal laws like ours too, courtesy of our common history & colonial heritage. Go check Amnesty International or other human-rights related sites if you want more info on capital punishment meted out for drug-related offences in other countries too. In this Internet age, it would be wise & prudent to do your homework with due diligence first, before making any comments, whether academic debate or otherwise, esp in Wikipedia in future. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Aldwinteo refuses to admit the controversy in Singapore itself about the killing of Mr. Murugesu, but the facts and demonstrations that happened cannot be denied. Obviously some people in Singapore are still 'proud' of what many others in the world view as a brutal and ignorant murder. Also, your edit of my post removed the word marijuana, while the case you cite involved heroin. Speaking of self-education, I have found such lack of distinction to be characteristic of those Singaporeans who supported the kill. Thank you.Ykral (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor. Venting your greviances regarding a person's affiliations do not and will not help your case. If you wish to be heard out, please give people evidence that this issue is of signficiant historical import and occured on a sufficiently large scale to be mentioned on the main Singapore article. Simply stating your personal opinion that Shanmugam Murugesu should be mentioned on the main page is irrelevant if you do not have the sources to back up your contributions. This issue may be of paramount importance to you if you are a strong proponent of human rights, but remember that Wikipedia is not catered solely to human rights, or drug convictions, or any specific topics. It is for everyone and everything, and be aware that because it must take an all-rounded view, minor issues may not make the cut for wide-reaching main articles like Singapore. You may wish to look at History of the Republic of Singapore instead, but be aware that the relative importance of your contribution must still and always be objectively and neutrally evaluated against the other contributions in the article. If you are concerned that your stance on human rights might prevent you from making a proper NPOV contribution, do highlight this to your fellow contributors, and we will help in whatever way we may. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 11:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your provocative "marijuana" header was renamed by another editor, and not by me! See the diff here. Being a practising Buddhist myself, I've my own strong misgivings on taking of another life at any place (unless in times of war or life-threatening situation etc), let alone being 'proud' of such act, or to advocate any support for capital punishment, which deny an individual the opportunity to repent & reform in good conscience. I'm disappointed by your poor interpretation & unfair association made on my previous comment, when what I highlighted earlier was ONLY the history & the facts of the issue at hand! It's your POV & agenda, that draw my attention & concern as per the guidelines & policies of Wikipedia earlier. Ask yourself honestly why your header was renamed subsequently & the additional comments posted by uninvolved editors above? Why not try to post such comments again at the talkpage of WikiProject Malaysia & see for yourself what is the outcome then? For your own good, it pays to sit back, re-read & reflect, before you shoot your mouth off in Wikipedia, or anywhere else online next time. NOTE: Please don't put words in my mouth or resort to unprovoked personal attack again, as it may lead to unwholesome karma next. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to request that you tone down the tone of your reply. Do try to assume good faith about any supposed 'agendas'. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 12:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As per the context of the matter, one should focus on the essence of the message rather than on the form itself, or exercise due diligence before making any belated comment. Why would an individual (aka IP 63.193.144.79 from AT&T, Texas, USA) continues to spend almost all of his time in talkpages raising 'questions' or giving unsolicitated 'commentary' on 14 Jun 2008 (as IP 63.193.144.79) rather than doing any meaningful edits to date? Has anyone check out & compare the similarity in tone & source of edits done anonymously from this same IP and an earlier one on 25 Apr 2006 coming from AT&T, Texas, USA too? I meant what I said & will do according to what I said too. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You have already failed to 'focus on the essence of the message rather than on the form itself'. It does not matter whether the user in question has been an active contributer or not - denying him any credibility to his argument on the basis of him having not made significant edits to Wikipedia articles is irrational and unfair. Not having been active does not make one any less capable of understanding situations and making a valid point. Also, highlighting your own observations in order to attribute a sinister trait to the user unfairly denies others the right to be heard in the case that the person does have a valid point to be made. Furthermore, I believe you are well aware of the existence of shared IPs which make your accusations of malicious intent a hasty conclusion at best. Remember, assume good faith. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 08:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to bore u with details about my past experience, just to say I'm no newbie on such matter, whether in Wikipedia or in real life. One should not just focus exclusively on the tactical aspect (form), but also on the long term strategy (essence) too. Spare me the high dosage of AGF - reflect & exercise due diligence & u may be able to appreciate what I meant in view of the chaotic working dynamics & past abuses in Wikipedia, no thanks to the poorly defined easy rules here. I've said what is needed to say earlier - whether u or anyone else accept it or not, u folks are entitled to your own view & conclusion, as I'm entitled to mine too. Your unsolicitated comments will not change my opinion now or tomorrow, nor will it stop me in monitoring or to take any necessary action on any likely trolls, disruptors, sockpuppets encountered during my patrols, or via automated alerts received from my little bots in future (I'm a techie but not the conventional type). Whether one's intention is good or bad, their karma will tell the rest of the story for all to see later, as well as its consequences too. On this note, I end my conversation here. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Digital Concierge

Hello people

I would like to get my request reviewed by an established editor and see if it fits this article. It would be great if the link [www.digitalconcierge2go.com] is added to the travel section of the site. It is about a mobile concierge meant to help Singapore visitors with information and discounts all over the city.

Thanks a bunch!! Saurabh itpl (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A few ideas to help you along: Is the website notable and central to the article? Is it an authority on the subject matter? Is it considered a vital source of information by the public in general? Is it one of the most reliable and extensive sources of information that readers often seek? Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 12:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Location of Singapore

The that shows the location of Singapore isn't very useful. The zoom level is insufficient. Right now Singapore is 3 dark pixels. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A kind soul should place an arrow.

--zheliel ^{I know I'm pro!}_{You should believe me.} 08:59, 27 October 2008 (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?

Small edit F15

I cannot edit this page (protected) but it seems that the link to the republic of Singapore caption of the picture of the F-15 is redundant (referring to the same page as it is on), can someone edit this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.208.111.0 (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)