Talk:Singapore

Eugenics in Singapore, Stop at Two, Have Three or More, etc.

I've started (a currently 19KB) article Eugenics in Singapore concerning past and present population control policies implemented by the government, which seems to at least affected the population structure somewhat, in addition I am getting sources which will estimate the impact of policy versus the demographic transition; in any case this sheds a different perspective on the development of Singapore. Is there any space in the article for it? In any case, I do think public campaigns in Singapore (soon to be created) are quite remarkable, see the likes of the Singapore Courtesy Campaign and posters here, that help contribute to Singapore's unique reputation. Cheers. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any great level of detail is notable, but perhaps something could be added to demographics. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Singapore POV

Someone seems to have suspicions that a recently added content does not conform to WP:POV. I assure you, it does. It's not up to me to prove that, but rather for you, and others, to come to a consensus that it doesn't. Please read the policy throughly, come to your own conclusions, and then post here. I'd appreciate it if you would not feel the urge to remove this content while the talk dispute is taking place. The Singapore page isn't a WP:BLP so no need to remove with prejudice. I'm unhappy enough as it is. Fleetham (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Its your problem that you're unhappy, don't make it ours as we have no obligations to share your woes. FWIW, I did invite you over to User talk:MilborneOne#Question to have a chat with an Admin but you refused and went on to add in the wikilink and url. What does that make of me? TBH, I have assumed good faith but you haven't. Secondly, the Admin replied and I'm sure you can see why I was asking a second opinion then. Still disagree? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

“ Sorry I did listen to the link but it is not exactly a reliable source, he says I have been in Singapore for a week - and now he is an expert! If what he says is really true then lots of other far more reliable sources must be around. - as quoted by MilborneOne. ”

File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-600px-en.ogv

A video showing the basics of verifiability policy.

• @Fleetham: And another thing, you've been blocked twice for edit warring (on other article pages), I don't think you understand fully what that means when I lodge a complaint against you later, do you? FWIW, you can quote a reliable source (such as an international news agency) but if that source isn't spewing out words that are verifiable (per WP:Verifiability) by anyone of us (especially when we do check it personally), the biased/skewed content has got to go... whether you like it or not. This has entirely nothing to do with WP:BLP and all that caboose, mind you. Think about it. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your revert. Fleetham (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Right, you are now one revert away from 3RR but I'm going to report you anyway, seeing that you have no intention to discuss this in whatsoever manner. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• As quoted by another admin to Fleetham on his talk page. I rest my case. Out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Three points.

1. It is not valid to take the line "as long as discussion is going on the disputed content must stay in the article." There is no "keep it in" default rule.
2. You are mistaken in saying "It's not up to me to prove that, but rather for you, and others, to come to a consensus that it doesn't." The relevant policy, which you can read at WP:BURDEN, says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
3. Simply asserting your case on a talk page and then making no response to other users' comments apart from "I've reverted your revert" does not constitute discussing the issue.

You do not seem to fully grasp the extent to which Wikipedia works by collaboration, and persistently trying to force your way through does not work. Since you have already more than once been blocked for edit warring you must be aware of that. Please avoid being blocked for much longer, perhaps indefinitely, by trying to work collaboratively. Use discussion to try to reach an agreement, not an empty show of discussion to justify insisting on your version. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with Fleetham's edits. He has not broken the '3 revert rule', he has provided a reasonable source and Wikipedia is open for everyone to edit. I don't see why Dave and a few others should be so hostile. However, I don't agree that the gov't has monopolies in many sectors of SG's economy. The gov't has stakes in many sectors through investments from GIC or Temasek but most sectors are competitive, mostly nearing perfect competition or oligopolies in a few sectors (telecom,internet etc). There are no monopolies in Singapore. If you can think of even one single monopoly in S'pore, feel free to post below.

Cheers! Smilingfrog (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can think of even one single monopoly in S'pore, feel free to post below.

SPH publishes all newspapers (although to be fair, Today is a joint venture with MediaCorp).

MediaCorp runs all the domestic TV stations

PUB is the monopoly water and sewage utility

SP owns the electricity transmission grid

SP also is the sole natural and town gas distributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.183.249 (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Are "Permanent Residents" really permanent residents?

Some of my friends who are "Permanent Residents" say that their residency is not permanent at all: they have to reapply every five or ten years.

So is it more accurate to describe what the government calls "Permanent Residents" as people with long-term residency visas? Piarco girl (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No... permanent residency is a status found in many nations in which the PR does not need re-entry visas, work permits, and other such annoying documents — but yet is not a citizen. Holding PR status is deemed 'permanent' because it is indefinitely renewable, and as long as maintained (for example, by staying in the country for the minimum annual period) can eventually lead to naturalisation. Most of the time, the PR has to reapply for this status if staying away from the country for too long. Also, a long-term residency visa generally does not impose obligations such as registration for national service (SG, US and several others) and does not include benefits such as easier access to schools, housing etc.Brythain (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Good explanation. Piarco girl (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, a permanent resident, once he's gotten the status, can indeed live, work etc in Singapore indefinitely. The only catch is that in Singapore, PRs do require re-entry permits (usually granted for 5 years at a time), and that if this permit is not renewed, he will lose his PR status if he ever leaves Singapore. Jpatokal (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Which tends to support my original point. PR status is, in practical terms, not really permanent. Piarco girl (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing particularly unique to Singapore about this, most all PR statuses around the world are subject to conditions of some sort. Only citizenship is (nearly) permanent. Jpatokal (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that nothing is permanent in the extreme. But PR status is easily renewed, even from overseas. See http://www.ica.gov.sg/page.aspx?pageid=152 . I also think that the question "Are 'Permanent Residents' really permanent residents?" is like saying "Are 'Permanent Teeth' really permanent teeth?" in that yes, they are until removed by age and uselessness. :) Brythain (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• @Brythain: Good point~!! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"Government censorship policies have not hindered economic growth"

Government censorship policies have not hindered economic growth.[169]

I read the reference. There is no econometric analysis to support the statement. It should be removed. Piarco girl (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Proving a negative is always difficult. I have no idea why this statement is there, come to think of it. Did anyone assert otherwise? Brythain (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. The sentence is irrelevant and doesn't make the slightest sense. Every gov't has its own censorship policies, why would that affect the economy? You can get any news you want in S'pore, it isn't as if the media is blocked to the extend of China or even Malaysia.

Smilingfrog (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dÿrlegur, 28 August 2011

Tony Tan Keng Yam will become the president of Singapore on Sep 1st, 2011

Dÿrlegur (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Please state exactly what change you are requesting to the article and supply a source. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony Tan is currently the President-elect of Singapore. Please add in his name below the President's name under Government.

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_707453.html

MrJacky (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Buaidh, 8 September 2011

Please change the See also section to the following:

==See also==
{{satop|Geography|Eurasia|Asia|Southeast Asia|Singapore}}
*[[International rankings of Singapore]]
{{clear}}

Yours aye,  Buaidh  20:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Mistakes that need correcting.

"English is the language of instruction in all public schools[126] and all subjects are taught and examined in English except for the "Mother Tongue" language paper.[127]"

SAP schools also teach subjects in Mandarin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.49.193.21 (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"The government spends 4.9% of its GDP on the military.[6]"

Do you really mean this? Or do you mean that the government spends 4.9% of the country's GDP on the military?

"To attract more tourists, in 2005 the government legalised gambling and allowed two casino resorts (called Integrated Resorts) to be developed.[75]"

Many types of gambling were legal in Singapore decades before 1985 -- what do you think the Singapore Turf Club and Singapore Pools were doing long before casinos were allowed?