Talk:Halimah Yacob

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Halimah Yacob is of Indian descent[edit]

Quote: "Her Indian-Muslim father was a watchman who died when she was eight years old." Source 1: A strong advocate for workers, women and minorities, Jessica Cheam, The Straits Times, 8 Jan 2013,

"Notable female politicians include Dhanam Avadai, PAP Member for Moulmein ( 1965–1968), lawyer Indranee Rajah, the current Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Law and Ministry of Education, and Indian-origin politician Halimah Yacob" Source 2: 50 Years of Indian Community in Singapore, cite book |last1=Rajan |first1=Uma |editor-last=Pillai |editor-first=Gopinath |editor2-last= Kesavapany |editor2-first=Krishnasamy |title=50 Years of Indian Community in Singapore |publisher=World Scientific Publishing Co |date=June 28, 2016 |pages=107 |chapter=To Singapore with Love... |isbn=978-9-813-14058-5 |lastauthoramp=y,

Traces of the news article that could be found on Google just months ago has mysteriously erased. Please reinstate this FACT.

Note to editors: 1) Singapore mainstream media is under total government control. 2) Halimah Yacob has indicated that she might be interested to run for the Presidential Election. 3) This year's Presidential Election is reserved for the Malays.

Jane Dawson (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

i don't know for a fact if she is indian but more 3rd party article suggest she is.
just saying it is irrational to remove fact with cited sources. even if there is dispute, the dispute should be address with opposing view then deleting the dispute as if it does not exist.
Akinkhoo (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I would support putting that snippet back in, since the Google Books highlight clearly shows Halimah Yacob's name on page 107 in the list of Indian women politicians. If there is a genuine dispute with the source of that book, it should be highlighted. Same with the article on; of course, this could be citogenesis in action. However, given that these edits came a few years after the news page and a full year after the publication of the book, I think I can trust the book at least. More investigation is needed to confirm the veracity of the claim, of course. Icedwater (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It has been mentioned in established media that her father is Indian-Muslim and her mother is Malay.
A strong advocate for workers, women and minorities, Thu, Jan 10, 2013, The Straits Times (link cited that has been removed has been deleted by Asiaone, but online and hard copies of the article remain) (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Can we just begin the article with "Halimah Binti Yacob (Jawi: حاليمه بنت ياچوب; born 23 August 1954) is a Singaporean politician, born to an Indian Muslim father and a Malay Muslim mother."? or to write under the "personal life" section "Halimah is born to an Indian Muslim father and a Malay Muslim mother."?
Quote: "Her Indian-Muslim father was a watchman who died when she was eight years old." from "A strong advocate for workers, women and minorities" by Jessica Cheam, The Straits Times, 10 Jan 2013,
Quote: "She added that her father, who died when she was eight years old, was born in Singapore, and she was brought up by her Malay mother." from "More consultation needed before my decision to run for president: Halimah Yacob" by Tham Yuen-C, The Straits Times, 17 July 2017, Sue (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
How is this even a debate right now? She is clearly someone of Indian descent as proven by multiple sources. Anyone trying to stop the Indian descent portion is just doing so out of political bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I concur - the problem is the page has been locked on the "wrong" version - we can make a "Protected edit request" but this needs to have a specific wording and properly cited references - Arjayay (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Why is this page protected from edits? Is the administrator being partisan and wants to whitewash the identity of Halimah's father? Kiwi8 (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The page is protected from edits because an edit war was going on. An Wikipedia administrator does not take sides when locking a page. It's just unfortunate that the ax fell when the "wrong version" was live. This has to be the lamest edit war I've ever come across. Everyone on this talk page is mostly in agreement, nobody is debating about anything, and the only one "in disagreement" is the Wikipedia article itself. I can't even... (facepalm)Sue (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This kind of white-washing is being carried out on several articles as part of a subtle political campaign in Singapore to rewrite factual history. It does not help that sources deemed reliable by Wikipedia is largely under control by the government.

Quoting LKY, “Repression, Sir is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love-it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they're conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict.” Jane Dawson (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me try again. Apparently using the phrase "{{Edit fully-protected}}" will attract the attention of an administrator. I want him/her to review the decision to lock the article. {{Edit fully-protected}} Kiwi8 (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Kiwi8 - Your understanding about the "edit fully protected" template is incorrect, so I have disabled the template.
If you want to ask for the protection-level of the article to be reduced, you should first ask the protecting administrator - If the protecting admin is inactive or you have already asked them you should then apply at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level, but
As I explained above, you can make an "edit fully protected" request but you need to propose a specific wording, state where in the article it should be added, and include properly cited references (not just bare URLs), to support your proposed change(s) - Arjayay (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
In this case the protecting admin was User:Slon02 so first you need to ask at User talk:Slon02 - Arjayay (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I'm satisfied enough by this talk page to see there's a decent consensus. I've reduced the protection status to short-term semi-protection, which it was before I imposed full-protection.--Slon02 (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification and for changing the protected status to semi. Kiwi8 (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The opinion here is almost unanimous. Doesn't anyone therefore think that it wasn't a legit edit war to begin with, but is actually a case of vandalism? Sue (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, not to mention the circumventing of the three-revert rule by logging out. I have reported the user as a sockpuppet. (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
This is probably not considered "sock puppetry" according to Wikipedia policy. The WHOIS queries show that the IP addresses belong to Singtel or Starhub, which probably means these IP addresses were dynamically assigned by those ISPs, and are not set up by anyone as sock puppets (even if he/she is the one behind the edits done via these IP addresses). Sue (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Could I request the logged-in editors here to either revert or improve on the writing? Thank you! (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I've added the content that was deleted during the war. Sue (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

If the edits are backed up by reliable sources, then I don't see why they should be removed. If one thinks that it is inaccurate, then he/she should provide evidence that shows otherwise. Orangewarning (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Chicatgang (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)There is no evidence to the contrary presented so far. One just suspect this is partly to pre-empt any debate about her race before the presidential elections.Chicatgang (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Late to the party.... but is there any reason on the need to include "of indian descent", when the following text clearly states that she is born of Indian and Malay parents? Why the emphasis on the "indian"-ness? Zhanzhao (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The lead should be a summary of an article, and the phrase "of indian descent" is appropriate there. The text which followed elaborating on her parentage shouldn't be there, instead it should be under the "personal life" section. But there was a prolonged edit war on that phrase "of indian descent", and to appease everyone, I feel that we have to elaborate on her parentage right at the beginning in a prominent place. I believe now is not a good time to remove the details of her parentage from the lead to the main body. Sue (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Its actually all semantics as technically that would mean she is of Indian AND Malay descent since both were her parents, but thanks for the answer. Though by right, technically I feel that the lead should just state her parentage which is just stating the facts. The debate on her racial status/descent seems like a whole subsection-worthy by itself considering the discussions being had about it. Zhanzhao (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I find that I agree with you. Perhaps once the article is no longer under full protection, the article can be changed to begin with:
Halimah binti Yacob (Jawi: حاليمه بنت ياچوب; born 23 August 1954) is a Singaporean politician[1] of Indian[2][3] and Malay[4] descent.


  1. ^ "Mdm Halimah Yacob", Singapore Parliament, retrieved 21 May 2011 
  2. ^ Rajan, Uma (June 28, 2016). "To Singapore with Love...". In Pillai, Gopinath & Kesavapany, Krishnasamy. 50 Years of Indian Community in Singapore. World Scientific Publishing Co. p. 107. ISBN 978-9-813-14058-5. Notable female politicians include Dhanam Avadai, PAP Member for Moulmein (1965–1968), lawyer Indranee Rajah, the current Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Law and Ministry of Education, and Indian-origin politician Halimah Yacob, former Minister and current Speaker of Parliament. 
  3. ^ Cheam, Jessica (January 10, 2013). "A strong advocate for workers, women and minorities". The Straits Times. Singapore. Archived from the original on July 21, 2017. Retrieved July 21, 2017. Her Indian-Muslim father was a watchman who died when she was eight years old. 
  4. ^ Tham, Yuen-C (July 17, 2017). "More consultation needed before my decision to run for president: Halimah Yacob". The Straits Times. Singapore. Archived from the original on July 17, 2017. Retrieved July 21, 2017. She added that her father, who died when she was eight years old, was born in Singapore, and she was brought up by her Malay mother. 

~ Sue (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I second this phrasing. If the Malay Community Committee does certify her as Malay and if she announces her candidacy for election, I'm thinking we could have an entire section on how her candidacy brought to light unhappiness among non-Malay Muslims (the Mendaki criteria for financial aid) and other similar issues.
On the edit war: I think it happened mainly because one person was unhappy with Halimah's Indian heritage being brought out in the limelight. The person attempted to suppress it as much as possible and refused to engage with the other editors in this Talk page. --YewGotUp (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
To date there is not enough reliable published sources on how her candidacy might have triggered discussions about classification of non-Malay Muslims, therefore a section on this as YewGotUp suggested will be removed as per Wikipedia's policy of "no original research" ~ Sue (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually there are quite a number of sources about this issue from multiple sources now where the issue is brought up, even specifically mentioning the edit war here :P
Zhanzhao (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@Wekepede: You're welcome to comment here about how her ancestry should be worded if you're so inclined. (Reference: [1] [2]) --YewGotUp (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reason her ancestry is on the first paragraph of this Wikipedia entry? It should be placed in "early life" only. All of the wiki pages of politicians that I have seen do not put ancestry right at the top. R4ge (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


There is no mention of any honorific on the Speaker of Parliament page. I would appreciate it if fellow editors could find one. -- (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Should her biography include a honorific, if at all? If so, what? (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  • No In fact honorific titles are quite useless in BLPs. Collect (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • No - Per Collect's argument. Meatsgains (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral - As long as it is accurate and true. I don't care either way. ~ Sue (talk) 06:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I concur with what Sue says. However, the honorific "Right Honourable" as it appeared in the previous version does not seem to be supported by any source. Kbseah (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Wading back into this discussion - talk is @YewGotUp:, right? Anyway, the issue of honorific for Singapore MPs has been discussed elsewhere: Talk:Parliament_of_Singapore#Regarding_standing_order_50.285.29_edit_by_SMUconlaw and Talk:Lee_Hsien_Loong#.22The_Honourable.22_honorific-prefix_on_Singapore_members_of_Parliament.2C_including_but_not_limited_to_Lee_Hsien_Loong, though you may have already seen these threads. Linking here for reference. Kbseah (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, the former is very helpful. I'm wondering if we are missing the point though. While the MPs might be using "The Honourable [so and so]" during their debates, I believe that the use of the prefix in an infobox might not be appropriate, since they are not entitled to use the style in their personal capacity. It might make more sense to convert the infoboxes to Template:Infobox official post. --YewGotUp (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
As I stated above, I'm neutral about having honorifics and postnominals and other "bling" in the infoboxes. For some people it is useful information, for others it is not. As long as it is accurate, which at this point I'm not really convinced it is. Kbseah (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


The following should be moved to the Trade union involvement subsection:

In recognition of her contributions, she was conferred the Berita Harian/McDonald's Achiever of the Year Award in 2001[1] and the "Her World Woman of the Year Award" in 2003.[2]


  1. ^ "Cultural Ambassador is Berita Harian Achiever of the Year 2009". Singapore Press Holdings. 29 July 2009. Archived from the original on 25 May 2015. Retrieved 21 May 2011. 
  2. ^ "Her World Woman of the Year celebrates 20 years". Her World. 25 March 2011. Retrieved 21 May 2011. 

From the Berita Harian/McDonald's Achiever of the Year Award citation, Halimah is credited as "Madam Halimah Yacob, Assistant Secretary General of NTUC".

Where "Her World Woman of the Year Award" should belong to is less obvious, but this article covers more of her achievements in the labour movement than in politics itself. -- (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Should Halimah's awards be moved to the relevant subsection, or would there be better ways to place them? -- (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I would move this to personal life since this award is a personal achievement. Jane Dawson (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Citation for contribution to Malay Knowledge-Based Economy Advisory Committee[edit]

Should a citation be required for Halimah's contribution to the Malay Knowledge-Based Economy Advisory Committee? -- (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a citation will be helpful. Rather than saying she contributed, which is vague, it would be more helpful to let readers know what she did specifically that contributes to Malay Knowledge... Jane Dawson (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes (Summoned by bot)L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources are not an option. This is a pretty basic WP:V matter. Any claim that has been (or is likely to be) challenged must backed by a WP:reliable source on this project, no exceptions. Only the most straight-forward, obvious, and non-controversial statements sometimes get a pass without sourcing (and I mean really basic statements here; something like "dogs are a type of mammal"). Even then, you never know when something that seems simple and intuitive might be challenged on some grounds; if it is, then a source is required, period. Snow let's rap 05:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. And it seems that she is going to run for president. When we enter campaigning period, even a seemingly innocuous fact can be challenged as a "disputed" claim. If that happens, citation from an authoritative source will be very helpful (and if the cited source permits, please archive it at in case the original url is taken off the internet in the future).~ Sue (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of edits by Richard Mile[edit]

Editor @Richard Mile: has been making edits to this current article that are being reverted by @YewGotUp:, who has also alleged that Richard Mile is a sockpuppet of the banned user Reid62 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alleged sockpuppet trying to start edit wars.

Needless to say I don't condone sockpuppetry and edit-warring. However not all of the last edit need be reverted. What was changed in the article:

  1. Addition of honorific, wikilinks, etc. in infobox
  2. Citation added for statement that she was chair of Jurong Town Council
  3. Statement with two refs on the Malay Knowledge-Based Economy Advisory Committee - one is a short biography that mentions her involvement in this committee, the other mentions her by name only once
  4. Removal of categories related to her Indian ethnic background

Nos. 2 and 3 in my opinion can be retained (no. 3 with some additional verification), whereas nos. 1 and 4 should not. No. 4 especially appears to be WP:TE, given that the subject's part-Indian ancestry is stated in verifiable sources.

I don't expect my comment here to cool the edit war. However as Richard Mile appears to be under the impression that other editors and administrators are biased against him, perhaps an extended explanation of why his edits are being reverted that is not a curt edit summary or a template message might catch his attention.

Kbseah (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with retaining point 2 and its reference, though it will be helpful to find out when she was in office.
My issues with point 3 are that [3] does not mention anything about her involvement, and it is likely that [4] was sourced from Wikipedia because of the writing style, and the lack of at least the AWARE Heroine award, which was awarded in October 2011 (this would be a massive red flag for me, as I added additional awards recently), and would therefore be WP:REFLOOP.
I also take issue with the statement "She is also actively involved in the Malay community", which I believe is highly subjective, and because the only supporting statement is her involvement with the Malay Knowledge Based Economy Advisory Committee. I would be more willing to let it pass if editors could come up with additional examples of her activity within the Malay community. This shouldn't be difficult for anyone who wants the claim to stay.
--YewGotUp (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the probable circular linking issue. I at least checked that "" was not a private user pagem though... The closest thing I could find to a "Malay Knowledge Based Economy Advisory Committee" was a meeting in 2000 called the Malay/Muslim Knowledge Based Economy Convention [5]. Kbseah (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we should retain the citation for the statement she is chair of Jurong Town Council, although it is a link to the town council's annual report, and the supporting source is her signing off the report, which in my opinion is bordering on original research ~ Sue (talk) 05:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2017[edit]

Please add this under the section "Presidential candidate". Thanks!

"Halimah is the first presidential candidate for the 2017 presidential election to have an official website. On[1], there are write-ups on her life and career as well as links to her Facebook page[2] and new YouTube channel[3]. The website also includes her key message "Do Good Do Together[4]" where she has explained how it is as much a principle as it is a slogan." Gingertay (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done - by another - Arjayay (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Halimah Yacob. Halimah Yacob  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ "Halimah Yacob". 
  3. ^ Halimah Yacob. Halimah Yacob  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. ^ "'Do Good Do Together' catchy, easy to understand: Halimah". TODAYonline.