Talk:Human rights in Singapore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Library of Congress Country Studies
WikiProject icon This article contains information from WikiProject Library of Congress Country Studies, an attempt to incorporate useful information, text, and images from the Library of Congress Country Studies and the related Country Profiles. These are public domain documents with extensive information on many countries. You may see what other Singapore-related contributions have been made by looking at the project's subpage for Singapore, which tracks progress for articles on Singapore, and look for what contributions you can make, including updates to this article.
 

Poor opening paragraph[edit]

the first paragraph is a needless repetition of subsequent facts about ISA and detention. very, very poor opening paragraph. Chensiyuan 10:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for reference[edit]

No reference was provided for the statement saying euthanasia is illegal in Singapore. -Jonathan Tan, Undergraduate, National University of Singapore. (Sept 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.3.6 (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Other content?[edit]

I would suggest other topics should be included such as: Issues of human trafficking in Singapore, both prostitution and maid labour. In particular it would be of relevance to include content regarding how the Singaporean Government levies a "tax" on maids of 345SGD, which is more than what they earn per month - effectively the government makes a huge profit from this service. Also the imposed "bondage" of 5000 SGD as well as the bond made between maids and their agencies means that they are indentured in most cases and are not free to leave, nor to contact for help. Most contracts require them to gain permission from their "employer"/master before they can request a change of contract or employer. Also they are not subject to any labour laws, for instance there is non minimum number days off. Many work for years without a single day off work. - And all this while the government makes more than 50% profit from this business.

Another topic would be to highlight the absence of anti-discrimination laws, and in fact institutionalised racism within certain key areas such as the military. Non ethnically pure Chinese are not permitted to join the Singapore Air Force. (even those stipulated as racially Chinese have to proof that both father AND mother are too.) Under Singaporean citizenship status all citizens are classified by race based solely through paternal lineage. Furthermore within the military senior positions (above ~Corporal) are none accessible for those of Malaysian ethnicity irrespective of their level of achievement.

- There is a lot of referencing that can be used to back these issues up, however this data can not be compiled from within Singapore out of danger of being convicted. The above text only acts to highlight points that can be looked into by people that are interested in this issue. I do not consent to any of the above content as being truthful or representative in any way whatsoever. Perhaps other wikipedians can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.228 (talkcontribs) 20:02, 16 September 2009

RfC on User:Cenwin88lee's conduct[edit]

Hello,

An RfC has been initiated to discuss Cenwin88lee's recent conduct. I invite all interested editors to come give their input at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cenwin88lee. Thanks! --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Difficult to find this info[edit]

Why is none of this mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Singapore? I doubt if anyone is going to use "Human rights in Singapore" as a search term in Wikipedia. If you look up Singapore, you'll find a glowing report about their country's history, GDP, etc., but no mention of the tyranny of their government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.190.18 (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

By talking about "tyranny" you reveal your own POV. The information on Wikipedia has to be neutral. Singapore#Government and politics has a link to this article and also does mention that some like Amnesty International have criticised the Singapore government on human rights grounds. Singapore is a summary article, and further details are supposed to go in the sub-articles such as this one. You can try to insert more detail in the Singapore article but it is already too long and you will find there is not consensus for significant additions to it. We have been over all this before. -- Alarics (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: a neutral point of view, represents all significant views fairly. Since the human rights are significant, in my opinion this deserves to have place in the article Singapore. Since the human rights have in my opinion high influense in the politics, economy, media, environmental issues and welfare of the state, it is a significant view. Watti Renew (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed so. That is why criticisms of Singapore are mentioned in Singapore#Government and politics. -- Alarics (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Yet strangely, human rights don't have a "high influence" on the "politics, economy, media, environmental issues, and welfare of the state" when it comes to the articles for countries like Canada or Germany (both featured articles). Quigley (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Presumably that is because there are far fewer criticisms of human rights in those two countries than in the case of Singapore. -- Alarics (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
From whom? Western governments? Western-based advocacy groups like Amnesty International with Western ideals of what are human rights? Should certain advocacy groups determine Wikipedia's coverage of certain topics in its articles? How do we quantify this? Quigley (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, from anybody, as far as I know. (If there are substantial complaints about human rights in Canada or Germany, from any quarter, they certainly ought to be included in the articles on those countries.) But are you saying there should be no mention of human rights at all in Singapore? I agreed with your deletion of Watti Renew's recent addition there, because the point is already adequately mentioned under Singapore#Government and politics. -- Alarics (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Complete coverage of all encyclopedic aspects of Singapore (including its government, its economy, and its environment) will automatically include much of the topics presented in a "human rights" context. But if the label "human rights" is used to describe such things as the punishments of the judicial system or labor relations, then it inherently frames the issues in an anti-government way, which is why a specific "human rights" section is undesirable. Quigley (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you don't realise that I am agreeing with you. You have removed the specific "human rights" section from Singapore and I support that. -- Alarics (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Before you reformatted it, I indented my first comment to show that I was replying primarily to Watti Renew. Quigley (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
My intetion is to address this basic consern: Difficult to find this info.Every article should have all information fairly including the human rights. WP:NPOV …all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Correcting this in the article Singapore: Having the human rights as own paragraph under “Government and politics” would in my opinion fulfill everyones good intentions. I started this but did not move the rest of the subject in the right place, which may have confused you. When these will be combined the text will be easier to find and will not take much more place. I will discuss this later in Talk: Singapore. Watti Renew (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Alarics, thanks for adding the link to Amnesty International. It is good to cite sources. As ref to [1]: in my opinion Amnesty is a neutral, independent and reliable source since it has no economic or political liabilities. Watti Renew (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course Amnesty International is not a neutral source! It is quite explicitly a campaigning body with its own agenda and POV. That's why we must say "According to Amnesty International..." or words to that effect, when we quote any of its pronouncements. -- Alarics (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Alarics. The notion that Amnesty International is a neutral source is absolutely laughable. That doesn't change the fact that Singapore doesn't have what one would consider a stellar human rights record. However, calling Amnesty International a neutral source is asinine.


International agreements[edit]

Chensiyuan [2], in my opinion the international agreements deserves its place with the latest ref. Here you can find the copy of the latest Amnesty International report: Amnesty Annual Reports 2011 Downloads and the Full Report 2011.

There are many international agreements Singapore has not signed: Civil and political rights, abolition of the death penalty, Economic, social and cultural rights and Elimination of Racial Discrimination. In my opinion the comparison to other countries gives additional value: For example Germany had signed all these agreements by 2009. Watti Renew (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think listing the agreements signed and not signed is fine. Boldface and comparisons to other countries, on the other hand, are unnecessary. Jpatokal (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Structure of Migrant Workers section[edit]

Currently the structure of this section is very odd. For one it starts listing examples right off the first paragraph, when examples are typically worked in later. Also the link to Human Rights in Burma at the top seems quite out of place, seeing that it is related only to the one liner mentioned, and is technically more a Burma/Singapore relationship issue rather than a Burma human righhts issue. Its as if specific attention is being drawn to this particular case. Not to the extent of WP:UNDUE but close. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I just rechecked that the Human Rights in Burma article does not elaborate on the points mentioned in this section. In fact, the only link between the two happens to be the fact that the 2 migrant workers were burmese who encountered what Amnesty identifies as migrants rights issues in Singapore; that and the fact that both were ASEAN countries. It should better go under the "See Also" section right at the end of the article. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

(possible/new) "Haze section"?[edit]

Hi, Zhanzhao, as you've seen. I added Foreign relations of Singapore to the Human rights in Singapore because as a foreigner as my own government informed me personally, you are not allowed to criticize the local government, which I totally respect. Not sure if that situation is for all foreigners the same but for e.g. 2015 Southeast Asian haze was something I associated only with Singapore as it affects my personal health on a daily basis since more than 3 weeks now. Of course consulting a local doctor and getting advise makes absolutely sense. But in terms of "Human rights" thinking it's only a local problem of Singapore is a bit unfair and "narrowminded". The article Foreign relations of Singapore helps a bit more to understand this. To make it clear, I'm not criticizing Singapore on this issue as it's not solvable by a single affected country alone, some locals also told me that they don't think it will be solved within the next 10 years (which might be true if you don't think/write about it).

But of course, in public no one talks about it, that does not mean that people don't think and make their own judgement about it (again something which is related to "Human rights"). And for me, this was like a "hidden secret" of South East Asia, I discovered myself in 2015. As it basically was also only mentioned in the news (and you can also check the creation date of: 2015 Southeast Asian haze), which was after the elections. But I believe I'm not writing a Conspiracy theory as I'm more into facts than into fiction.
Back to Human rights in Singapore: So how is this now associated with this article itself? For me (as a foreigner and I'm not the only one) it affects: "2 Human rights under domestic law" (2.2 Freedom of expression and association) and more important (but as I did not ellaborate or change anything in this article, of course a bit unclear): "3 Social Issues" which could be probably improved with adding a new section for the Southeast Asian haze which seems a problem of at least half of the ASEAN states (5 countries out of 10 memberstates) since at least 10 years by now (agreements where signed in 2005), but basically since then it repeats almost ever 2 years, see also: ASEAN "Environment" section, part after "deforestation". I was also thinking about moving this "social issue" to: Human rights in Asia but I'll guess it's irrelevant for 95% of the +/-50 states listed there. But there's also Human rights in East Asia.
But I'll guess you have another view and can tell me where the "haze topic" would fit in, if this is 100% not appropriate for you to expand the article? I'm still trying to understand how a topic like this is not listed as a "social issue" since it exists since +10 years and actually finding opinions on this topic is also a bit delicate, but I already stated my "disclaimer". --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Huggi, sorry I really am not really getting what you are trying to explain. I'm guessing that you think foreigners have restrictions on criticising the government, therefore it is a foreign relations issue? Thats a bit of an extrapolation - as far as I understand there isn't any law against foreigners criticizing the government, though do correct me if I'm wrong here. The closest I can think of is probably Singapore's Sedition Act, but that is universal and covers everyone, locals and foreigners alike; and sedition acts are not even unique to Singapore - See list on the side of the Sedition article. Also I don't quite get how the Haze issue comes into play here. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Zhanzhao thanks for your feedback. I understand. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Human rights in Singapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Information lacking[edit]

There should really be a section dedicated to political repression, persecution of opposition parties, jailing of protesters, etc. It's alluded to, but almost completely absent from the article in any significant detail. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human rights in Singapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

New section on Controversies?[edit]

I have moved article content below here. Suggest adding a new section on Controversies and elaborating before we add back to main article. As it stands now, it doesn't fit in to any section.

British journalist Alan Shadrake was convicted in Singapore in 2010 of contempt of court for scandalising the Singapore judicial system, through his published views on the country's criminal justice system, sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment and a fine of $20,000.[1] Human rights lawyer, Eugene Thuraisingam was fined $6,000 for contempt of court over a poem posted on Facebook that was seen as a deliberate attack on the integrity of the judiciary.[2]

Jane Dawson (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Before you do that, I can't say I completely agree with the way you've been restructuring the article. The new titles seem to have whitewashed the issues at hand to reflect the existing content rather than the content which should be included. If you look at articles about other countries with pretty severe human rights issues, such as Human rights in China or Human rights in Russia, you will see that headings such as "media freedom," "political freedom," "freedom of assembly," "religious freedom," etc. The sections are based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, highlighting where the country fails and succeeds in each area - that is without a doubt the only logical way to lay this article out. There is no need for a controversy section since the controversy is failing to uphold the UDHR. The content you mention would clearly belong in a press freedom section since it's about the jailing of journalists. Things like the jailing of conscientious objectors should have their own section since that's not technically in the UDHR.
May I suggest also taking a serious look at sources here. Doing a quick count, I see 6 from Straits Times and 4 from the government - that's not in compliance with WP:RS. Looking at how this sourcing is used: The government argues that death penalty is meted out for the most serious crimes to curb the drug menace as Singapore is particularly vulnerable due to its small size and location near the Golden Triangle. - this lacks any balance whatsoever and language like "the drug menace" have no place on Wikipedia, nor do any other state mandated soundbites.SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I have restructured the article, taking reference from Human rights in Malaysia, which has similar experiences to Singapore. The previous version seems quite haphazard to begin with. Nobody is stopping you from expanding on the content. Except for the paragraph above, I did not remove anything from the article. The section headings should be named as appropriate to the article title and I am just following Wikipedia policies of DUE WEIGHT and NPOV. That's why I am suggesting here on talk page a section on controversies (or any heading befitting of the article title) to raise issue on any violations to human rights. It is not my intention to whitewash. Jane Dawson (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)