Talk:Cabinet of Singapore/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. One thing that I find confusing right away in reading the article. It seems that that Prime Minister appoints the President and the President appoints the Prime Minister. Who, if anyone, is elected by the people? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking the time to review the article. Both the President and Prime Minister are elected (in separate elections) by the people. Do you think it is necessary to mention that in this article? I think the point is dealt with in the articles "President of Singapore" and "Prime Minister of Singapore". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 03:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do think so. I, as a general reader, spent time reading the sub articles trying to figure this out. It has everything to do with the power relationships between these positions. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, how's this? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand how the Prime Minister of Singapore who is the head of government can be appointed by the President. I would think the President would be the head of government, at least of the executive branch of government. I guess I am confused. In the U.S. we have the executive branch (headed by the President), the legislative branch (Congress) and the judicial branch (the Supreme Court). Perhaps I need to read up on the Parliamentary form of government. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

In Westminster-style legal systems, that is systems based on the British model, there is an overlap between the executive and legislative branches of government. The Queen (in the UK) or President (in Singapore), who is head of state, is a member of both of these branches but plays only a nominal role, unlike the executive President in the US. Instead, the head of the government is the Prime Minister who, together with other Ministers, forms the Cabinet. Thus, the executive branch consists of the head of state and the Cabinet. The Prime Minister and Ministers are also Members of Parliament, and so are members of the legislative branch as well. This makes the role of the judicial branch important, since the executive and legislative branches are not strong checks on each other. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• OK, thanks for the explanation. I get it now! —Mattisse (Talk) 17:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I think you need to give a little more of this history, so that the readers understand why Singapore has the form of government it does, e.g. former British colony etc. Also, what is the effect of the merge with Malaysia, since that apparently introduced another court system, and perhaps had other governmental effects. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw your message, but wasn't able to respond immediately because it's been an incredibly busy few days for me. Yes, I will add a bit more of the history. My understanding is that Singapore's independence from Britain and simultaneous merger with Malaysia did not really change the Cabinet system, apart from the British High Commissioner to Singapore relinquishing his executive powers, of course. The Singapore Cabinet remained the government of the State of Singapore, which was now one of the states in a larger federation. On Singapore leaving the federation, the Cabinet became the government of the independent republic. Do you think it's necessary to mention this much detail? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've added a bit more information to the article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think the "History" section should come first, before the sections describing the cabinet. In its place at the end, where it is now, it seem like an after thought. The history should provide context in which to view the current structure of the cabinet. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• I moved the history section to the fore. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): It is clearly written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): It is well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): The sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Cover the broad aspects b (focused): Remains focused on subject of article

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congratulations! I learned a great deal from this article.

—Mattisse (Talk) 23:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks very much. And I'm glad you've found the article educational. When I edit Wikipedia, I learn new things all the time. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)