Talk:Parliament of Singapore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Parliament of Singapore was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 5, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed
Did You Know

Worker's Party whip[edit]

Can we have a source for the Worker's Party Whip please31.205.74.13 (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. It looks like someone accidentally deleted the reference previously. — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Parliament of 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) 22:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Legal status of the Leader of the Opposition in Singapore[edit]

With regards to revision 766665872 and the counter-revision: Even if the leader of the opposition in Singapore is considered "unofficial" then there should not be a need to emphasise that under the section heading. If "there is no "official" Leader of the Opposition, as the text makes clear" then the sentence "...the leader of the largest opposition party in Parliament is usually given the title of unofficial Leader of the Opposition" would have been misleading and poorly phrased because the use of the word "title" implies a sense of officiality. Epicity95 (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It would be misleading not to use the word unofficial in the section heading as that would give the impression that it is an official title, for instance, in the sense that it is prescribed by law. Title does not imply any official status; it simply means a designation by which someone may be addressed. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding standing order 50(5) edit by SMUconlaw[edit]

SMUconlaw have undone the revision below, which seems to be based on his own paraphrasing Wikipedia:No_original_research combining two standing orders, which would be incorrect. In the standing order, this would only be applicable to petitions SO 18 (5a), and no record of any members using it. Parliament report transcript since 1955 also did not return record of this type of addressing to the members. SO 20 (5) and SO 19 also did not specifically mention to address the members as "honourable", therefore it should be corrected.

Parliament Transcript since 1955

Standing Order 2010

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS AND OTHER MEMBERS 20 (5) A Member who has given notice of a question for oral answer may request that it be converted to a question for written answer. Notice of such a request shall be given by the Member in writing on any working day before the sitting day on which the answer is required.

PETITIONS 18 (5a) Every Petition offered to be presented to Parliament shall begin with the words “To the Honourable the Members of Parliament, Singapore, in meeting assembled;’’or with words equivalent thereto

The passage you removed incorrectly was this: "Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries are addressed by the offices held by them (for example, "the Honourable Minister for Trade and Industry"), while other MPs are referred to by the constituencies they represent ("the Honourable Member for Holland–Bukit Timah GRC") or by their names if they do not represent any constituency." The reference is to Order 50(5) of the Standing Orders of Parliament, not Order 20(5). Order 50(5) reads:
A Member, other than a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary, shall be referred to by the Constituency he represents or the name he was returned to Parliament. Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries shall be referred to by the designation of the offices held by them.
Thus, Orders 18(5)(a) and 20(5) are irrelevant to the point made in the text of the article. In fact, Order 18(5)(a) (which deals with petitions to Parliament) and Order 20(5) (which deals with questions asked in Parliament by MPs) do not relate directly to each other. Also, it is not the case that there has been no petition to Parliament since 1955. A petition was presented to Parliament on 22 October 2007 calling for the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code, and was debated during the Second Reading of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill on the same day. — SMUconlaw (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
SMUconlaw, I made a mistake about using SO 20(5), but neither does SO 50 (5) mentioned to address the members as WP:PUFF "the Honourable ...", nor in the petition link you provided. Section 50 of the SO is about "Content of Speeches". It is not compulsory for members to address with this opening, if not many transcript since 1955 seating of the speeches would have been found, and it has not, please provide evidence on this. This is what I am emphasizing the word "the Honourable ..." , if this is your original research which are not able to backup from the Standing Order, it should be removed. "referred to by the designation of the offices " too do not have this title. What is stopping members from addressing "the Honourable NMP or the Honourable NCMP"? Reddotparty (talk) 06:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Every word that is said in Parliament is recorded by a team of verbatim reporters and published as the official record of proceedings known as the Singapore Parliament Report (SPR) or "Hansard" as it is popularly known in many Commonwealth Parliaments.
Reddotparty (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:PUFF is not relevant here. Firstly, it is an essay and not policy. Secondly, it counsels against the practice of "the addition of praise-filled adjectives and claims", for example "to exaggerate the notability of the article subject to avoid deletion of the article". The mention of the term "the Honourable" here is to point out the standard usage in Parliament and not to make the article seem more important. I take your point that the use of the honorific is not mentioned in S.O. 50(5). However, it is clear that this is a widespread practice in Parliament, which can be seen from the following debates in Parliament, which are just a handful of the many examples that exist:
These references can be added to the article if this would be clearer for the reader. — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I have found a 1988 parliamentary debate that clarifies the situation (Wong Kan Seng (Leader of the House), "Amendment of Standing Orders (Paper Parl. 4 of 1988)", Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (11 August 1988), vol. 51, cols. 524 and 528), so I have added it to the article. It is not mandatory to use the honorific "the Honourable" in Parliament, but MPs may do so as a sign of respect. — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
SMUconlaw Thank you for looking into this. I find no issue with that part of the article now. Reddotparty (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)