Talk:Singapore

Template:WP1.0

Some observations

I came to this page because I needed to get an overview of modern Singapore. Let me say right off that it is good to read with loads of information. The following comments are just my impressions as a reader.

Introduction The introduction is a bit in your face. There is such a wide coverage and so much detail that it it's a bit hard to digest. Suggest that it be summarised and some of the data be saved for later sections.

Pictures I feel that the pictures are too small (of course they can be expanded by clicking on them)

Tourism I haven't checked this, but surely Singapore has a large tourist industry. There is no coverage of this in the article.

Nature Yes, Singapore is a go-go nation with high urbanisation and land development but even though it's a small island there must be some areas of 'natural' beauty. Nothing of this is covered either in the text or by the pictures.

This is not meant to be a criticism of the Singapore page. On the contrary I enjoyed reading it. It's just my initial impression.

CPES (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

To add to above. In government section, we learn that 6 MP's were elected from the opposition. This is MEANINGLESS unless we're told what proportion of the total that is, and unless we're told how many were previously in Parliment. This is not neutral POV, imho.Abitslow (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The case of Shanmugam Murugesu

This appears to be a key point in the country's history. Not only many in Singapore but around the world were shocked by the hanging execution of a man for marijuana. The demonstrations that occurred in the country itself are worthy of note here, being the first large public questioning of a man killed by their justice system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.108.8 (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Execution and civil liberties may seem to be important to you such that this is important enough to be included in the Wikipedia article about Singapore. Clue: It isn't. This article isn't about civil liberties. While you may want to champion your cause, this is the wrong place to do it. Stay relevant to the topic. --82.28.198.237 (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"Singapore finally finds a voice in death row protest

'The Canton meeting room at Singapore's drab Furama Hotel is an unlikely venue for history to be made. But on Friday night this bland setting hosted an unprecedented event for the tightly controlled island republic. Organisers of a three-hour vigil for Shanmugam Murugesu, who is likely to be executed on Friday for possession of 1 kilo of marijuana, said it was the nation's first public gathering organised solely by citizens demanding a change to the law.'

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/may/08/johnaglionby.theobserver — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.108.8 (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That was nine years ago! -- Alarics (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

hi alarics. not sure what your point is? a historic event is not based on its currency in time. it could have been 1,000 years ago, or today. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.108.8 (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

And your point is? I refer you to Wikipedia's policy about giving undue weight to minority views. Just because someone said something doesn't mean it should be included. --82.28.198.237 (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

hi 82.28.198.237, do you have a reliable source that the Guardian article covered a minority view? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.108.8 (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The point is that now, nine years on, we can see that protest didn't in fact have any effect on policy. -- Alarics (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Smart Nation artcle

There is a proposal to convert Smart Nation, an article about Singapore's 'Smart Nation' project into a redirect to Smart city. Content from that article may be appropriate to add to this article and I am inviting people here to enter the discussion on talk:Smart Nation. PeterEastern (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Concerning to the map in ASEAN (I can add a larger dot if editors think it looks too small, as in the case of Brunei)

As I said in the article about Brunei, Singapore is a small country, so it may be barely visible in this map (and the same concern I have about Brunei, so I've edited this comment in the Brunei article Talk Page). If the editors about Singapore have any problem with it, I can add a quite larger dot on Singapore's location (and the same is applyable to Brunei). Thanks for reading and for all of your suggestions. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 3:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

singapore english

This section should be changed: "singapore english is based on british english" seems to refer to the standard written language but is ambiguous; there are a few lines discussing the relationship between the standard language and local creole but this needs work as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telmac (talk • contribs) 15:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Democracy Index

So on 10.03.2015 YJAX made an edit, 'upgrading' Singapore to a 'flawed democracy'.

However, the most recent Democracy Index available from 2013 (Democracy index 2013: Democracy in limbo) still classifies it as a 'hybrid regime' - so I don't see what's the basis for that edit.CryptoCopter (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The latest Democracy Index in 2014 moved Singapore up to the 'flawed democracies' category.--Joshua ^{Talk to me} _{What I've done?} 10:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"The People's Action Party has won every election since self-government began in 1959. The dominance of the PAP, coupled with one of the world's lowest levels of press freedom and most suppressed civil liberties and political rights, has led to Singapore being the lowest ranked developed country in the Democracy Index, classified as a flawed democracy." - This source needs to be cited. Furthermore, stating that the cause of the classification is due to the dominance of the PAP without any reference at all makes it sound like original research. This is one of the only claims made in the introduction without being verified. If this does not get fixed, I will delete it. --82.28.198.237 (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It's on pages 13 and 20 of that report. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Panoramic view of central district

Can anyone verify that the panoramic view of the central district (last image in the article) is legitimate? The entire right 3rd of the image looks clone-stamped together with all of the duplicate buildings, but I suppose it's possible the city has actually been built like that to save costs. Some guy (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The picture looks alright to me. Those seemly identical buildings on the right are HDB public housing blocks, which are built closely in clusters to save space and costs.--Joshua ^{Talk to me} _{What I've done?} 13:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, very interesting. Thank you. Some guy (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

mera name-jay prakash Kumar (sahani) and lalbabu kumar =village- musawa bhedihari (sugauli-east champaran (Bihar)

p.s Sugauli p.o sapaha village musawa bhedihari (east champaran)bihar (p.n-845435) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayprakashsahani07 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Second Paragraph, First line

Surely "belonged to" might be better read as "hosted". Your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.103.45.34 (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

"Belonged to" is fine. The sentence means that the island was ruled by a series of empires (Srivijaya, Majapahit, Malacca, Johor, to name a few). "Hosted" may imply that there were several (mini) empires located on such a small island, which is most likely not the case.--Joshua ^{Talk to me} _{What I've done?} 10:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Credit rating

Why is the credit rating considered important enough for the lead? Kendall-K1 (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Era Styles

I think that, unless quoting a document or setting a chronological premise (you know, all the usual Wikipedia exceptions for this kind of thing), all instances of an calendre era should be in the BCE/CE (Before Common Era/Common Era) format, rather than the BC/AD (Before Christ/After Death [of Christ]) format. Although identical in meaning, the former has a more neutral connotation to it, which I think not only is more socially appropriate for a general encyclopedic platform, but also better fits Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Apparently, though, there are some who disagree with me (my edit in the 2nd paragraph, Top section got reverted), so I figured I would post a thing on the Talk page to discuss it. :) What do you all think? SarahTehCat (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Just an addition: I did not know about WP:ERA, so I apologise. Nevertheless, I still think that this would be a good idea overall, at least for the points I mentioned above, and I'd like to hear what you all think. SarahTehCat (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

As established by our MOS at WP:ERAS, we must leave AD/BC vs. CE/BCE as-is in all articles, unless there is consensus that an article-specific reason exists that requires one or the other. Without that, we must leave this article as it stands, using AD/BC.

I can't think of any such reasoning that might apply here. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I prefer AD/BC and would rather leave it as-is. By the way, I can't believe "AD" Monroe is commenting on this. Did you create that account just to discuss this issue or is that a coincidence? It's pretty awesome. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@A D Monroe III: Two things:

1. True. Good point. 👍

2. I agree with @Kendall-K1: I would like to know if you did that, too. Kind of amusing, actually. Haha...

SarahTehCat (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Section

Hi, to which section this photo is the best,

Singapore garden 2014

as there is no section of the most beautiful garden of Asia ? Rafael Guri (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any appropriate section on the current article as there isn't anything mentioned about parks in Singapore. --Graphium 06:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really get what you mean in the later sentences. Also I think there is no need for the specific descriptions of those parks/gardens in the city area in this article. Another editor may revert the changes if they disagree; there are quite a few editors who regularly watch and edit this article. --Graphium 07:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Parks are mentioned in the Geography section. I agree with Graphium that there is no need to go into specifics about a particular park. What Rafael had described sounds like the two domes in Gardens by the Bay, which should be (and already is) covered in that article.--Joshua ^{Talk to me} _{What I've done?} 05:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Flawed democracy and income inequality

The info about being ranked a "flawed democracy" (an upgrade actually) and having high income inequality has been in the article for a while (since March 2015 and at least April 2014, respectively). I'm starting discussion about its removal per WP:BRD. Previous consensus/status quo is that it stay in the article for now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Inviting Smilingfrog to this conversation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, the edits to the lead are new, and hence, it is best to discuss them before pushing them through, especially upon the first revert, as per WP:BRD/WP:CON.

The new edits to the lead state that:

1. Singapore has the highest income inequality in the developed world

2. Singapore is the lowest ranked developed country in the Democracy Index, classified as a "flawed democracy"

The old edits in the article itself you talk about (since March 2015 and at least April 2014, respectively) state:

1. The Economist ranks Singapore as a "flawed democracy", the second best rank of four, in its "Democracy Index".

2. It (Singapore) also has one of the highest income inequalities among developed countries, being below Hong Kong and above the United States.

Compare them, the new edits in the lead doesn't match the old edits written below in the article, in fact, they are quite different.

I have looked at the sources for the edits. The sources do not mention that Singapore is the lowest-ranked developed country anywhere, this is the main reason why I reverted the new edits to the lead. The edits to the lead is original research and Wikipedia has a policy against original research WP:NOR. The new edits to the lead are also not verifiable as per Wikipedia:Verifiability requirement.

Never mind that it is original research and not verifiable and shouldn't be written on Wikipedia. Having looked at the lists myself, Singapore is not the lowest-ranked 'developed country' on both lists, so these edits are also pretty much wrong. On the Democracy Index, I can see Turkey, Qatar, the UAE, etc below Singapore. Weirdly, Hong Kong (whose general population are not even allowed to vote), is placed above Singapore. Great job, 'The Economist Newspaper'. BTW, The Economist itself admitted that Singapore has free and fair elections in one of its publications. So go figure. Similarly, I just took a quick look at the List of countries by income equality. I can easily spot developed entities such as Hong Kong SAR, Chile, Mexico, and South Africa below Singapore. In fact, Singapore is just 5 ranks below the USA on this table. The 'Democracy Index' is published by The Economist Group, a London-based newspaper business (British-centric and not Asian/Middle Eastern/Indian centric (whom, by the way, form the majority in the world)) with a circulation of only a few million. It is not an unbiased truly international organisation (such as the World Bank, UN, IMF, WHO etc). I am not sure it is worth writing about such 'indexes' at all, in both the lead and content.

Thanks and best,

Smilingfrog (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Would like to point out that just because Smilingfrog's edits were new ones made to old writeup, this can also be said of the contentious unsourced edit when it was first introduced, just that no one noticed it ( subtle vandalism). If it shouldn't have been there in the first place, it shouldn't have been there, period. A few additional points to note:

• The line about "flawed democracy" is badly written: Going by the reference, it should more accurately be written that Singapore is the lowest ranked country in the "flawed democracy" category. The way it is misleadingly written now, implies it is the lowest ranked developed country in the whole list, not just that category;
• There is no consistent listing of "developed" countries (i.e. see The World Factbook list of developed countries which does not include Singapore, same with other countries which results in inconsistent rankings; and leads to the last point)
• Since there is no consistent list of "developed" countries, there is no way to systematically quantify any statement that goes "lowest of developed countries".

As Smilingfrog pointed out, its not listed in any article explicitly that Singapore was ranked the lowest, and even if it did, that source should be explicitly cited in prose due to the 3 issues I just mentioned. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, let's revert the inequality stuff to the old wording. You are both right that the source doesn't mention the developed part. As for the flawed democracy, I see no problem with the wording. It's summarized as required by LEAD, and it gives the source of the ranking. But since "developed" is ill-defined, let's remove that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I think clearly, the new edits shouldn't be in the lead as they are original research as per WP:NOR. As per WP:CON WP:BRD, I think we will revert the new edits. Your latest edits are quite problematic as the table is meant to be read as a whole, by listing the results per section, it is not WP:IMPARTIAL and probably enters original research WP:NOR realm. Also, as per WP:LEAD , it is clear that they are not suitable (not important, relevant, vital and neutral enough) to be in the lead.

My second point. The 'Democracy Index' is published by The Economist Group, a London-based newspaper business (British-centric and not Asian/Middle Eastern/Indian centric (whom, by the way, form the majority in the world)) with a circulation of only a few million. It is not an unbiased truly international organisation (such as the World Bank, UN, IMF, WHO etc). Ditto for the Freedom in the World report by Freedom House (a small USA based organisation with only 150 staff).

As per WP:RS, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views are covered. These sources fail the WP:RS test glaringly. The work/views of a group of 150 (mostly) Americans that form Freedom House is hardly reliable and hardly covers all majority views (i.e. Asian/Arabic/Indian, etc). They shouldn't be in the content itself, much less in the lead.WP:LEAD. Something from a neutral WP:RS large international organisation such as the World Bank, UN, WHO etc is more suitable.

Just as futher example, I don't see it being important (and neutral/impartial) enough to write that according to Xinhua the USA ranks low on racial equality as there is still seggregation between races. The USA is the second lowest ranked developed country on the Gini index, and has the highest rate of incaseration/gun crimes/rapes/drug use/ amongst developed country and is ranked the lowest on the second tier of the table. Such statistics should be compared globally (as they are meant to be) instead of only with a small group of nations (perhaps 5% of nations). Obviously, writing such things distort the fact that the USA is a largely peaceful country and has a high standard of living globally where different races largely interact peacefully. Such edits fail WP:IMPARTIAL WP:LEAD WP:RS WP:NOR.

Thanks and best,

Smilingfrog (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You say I think we will revert the new edits but there's not consensus for that. Please explain how this is original research. You misunderstand what RS is. Sources need not have wide readership or even be neutral to be considered reliable.

Frankly I'd love to see that info about the USA in the article. The USA is hardly peaceful, especially when compared to its peers. And it's more than 5% of government bodies. More than 5% of population, political power, and economic resources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way, all of us here (Ujongbakuto, Zhanzhao, me) clearly disagree with the new edits. WP:CON WP:BRD clearly states that the new edits shouldn't be pushed through. As for issues with the new edits, it is not just RS, but WP:IMPARTIAL WP:LEAD WP:RS WP:NOR as well.

Best.

Smilingfrog (talk) 05:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2015

In the entry for "Singapore", in the last sentence of the section "Etymology", please change "SG15" to "SG50". This is in reference to Singapore's Golden Jubilee, a.k.a. the country's 50th anniversary. As this is my first edit request, I'm not sure what sort of "verifiable and reliable sources" to provide, but perhaps www.singapore50.sg is sufficient (where the logo appears a few times)? In any case, as a long-term resident of Singapore, I can confirm the ubiquitous "SG50" branding. 202.156.55.117 (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 16 external links on Singapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110223000344/http://yesterday.sg:80/discover-more/communities-festivals/communities/the-malays/ to http://yesterday.sg/discover-more/communities-festivals/communities/the-malays/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110603225639/http://www.singaporelaw.sg:80/content/LegalSyst1.html to http://www.singaporelaw.sg/content/LegalSyst1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110123145140/http://www.singaporelaw.sg:80/content/LegalSyst.html to http://www.singaporelaw.sg/content/LegalSyst.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070625180014/http://www.mindef.gov.sg/cyberpioneer/backissuessep1.htm to http://www.mindef.gov.sg/cyberpioneer/backissuessep1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100207003624/http://www.asiaone.com:80/Business/News/My+Money/Story/A1Story20100201-195831.html to http://www.asiaone.com/Business/News/My+Money/Story/A1Story20100201-195831.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090707002844/http://business.asiaone.com:80/Business/News/SME%2BCentral/Story/A1Story20070926-27084.html to http://business.asiaone.com/Business/News/SME%2BCentral/Story/A1Story20070926-27084.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100202075742/http://www.mas.gov.sg:80/currency/currency_info/Heritage_Collection.html to http://www.mas.gov.sg/currency/currency_info/Heritage_Collection.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140420192814/http://www.edb.gov.sg/edb/sg/en_uk/index/industry_sectors/energy/facts_and_figures.html to http://www.edb.gov.sg/edb/sg/en_uk/index/industry_sectors/energy/facts_and_figures.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120418084237/http://www.edb.gov.sg:80/edb/sg/en_uk/index/industry_sectors/marine___offshore/facts_and_figures.html to http://www.edb.gov.sg/edb/sg/en_uk/index/industry_sectors/marine___offshore/facts_and_figures.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130120030941/http://www.asiaone.com/Business/News/Story/A1Story20110113-257928.html to http://www.asiaone.com/Business/News/Story/A1Story20110113-257928.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090225121552/http://www.asiaone.com:80/Business/News/Office/Story/A1Story20090222-123635.html to http://www.asiaone.com/Business/News/Office/Story/A1Story20090222-123635.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101113153652/http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/ghsr1/chap2.pdf to http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/ghsr1/chap2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110605104816/http://www.lta.gov.sg/public_transport/pt_rail_tracing.htm to http://www.lta.gov.sg/public_transport/pt_rail_tracing.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/more-than-1-3-million/1297688.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.singstat.gov.sg/news/news/press12012011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110812071843/http://www.pmo.gov.sg:80/content/pmosite/mediacentre/inthenews/ministermentor/2009/April/old_and_new_citizensgetequalchancesaysmmlee.html to http://www.pmo.gov.sg/content/pmosite/mediacentre/inthenews/ministermentor/2009/April/old_and_new_citizensgetequalchancesaysmmlee.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Millionairs?

The referenced article states the rate of millionaire "resident households" while the wiki just says "households". Do "resident households" include all workers in the country including foriegn workers. If it does, what if they live 8 to a dormitory, is that a household? What we really need here is a per capita rate of millionaires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.127.152 (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2015

118.200.240.3 (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Not a neutral point of view for this article

This article reads like a promo for Singapore--too much about how wonderful and efficient Singapore is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave from louisville (talk • contribs) 19:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree.

The problems I have identified are: blatant advertising, superfluous content, lack of paragraph flow, and lengthy text. I have transferred unneeded facts here should they be of relevance in the future. I have also removed blatant advertising without transferring such content here.

• ranked as the "Easiest place to do business" for nine consecutive years by the World Bank
• It is the world's top meeting city (UIA) and Asia's top convention city since 2002 (ICCA). Globally, it is the "City with the best investment potential" (BERI), 2nd most competitive country, 3rd-largest foreign exchange centre, 4th-largest financial centre and one of the top two busiest container ports since the 1990s.
• Singapore's best known global brands include Singapore Airlines (SIA) and Changi Airport, both amongst the most-awarded in their industry; SIA is also rated by Fortune surveys as Asia's "most admired company". For the past decade, Singapore has been the only Asian country with the top AAA sovereign rating from all major credit rating agencies, including S&P, Moody's and Fitch.
• Singapore ranks high on key measures of national social progress. It leads Asia, and ranks 9th globally, on the Human Development Index, including education, healthcare, life expectancy, quality of life, personal safety, housing.
• Gallup polls shows 84% of its residents expressed confidence in the national government, one of the highest ratings in the world.
• It is ranked as Asia's most influential city and 4th in the world by Forbes. (disputable)

- ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 02:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2015

Fgargano01 (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Under "Languages': 'Translators' need to be changed to 'Interpreters'.

Done Correct, thanks. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)