Jump to content

Talk:Singapore/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Climate Table

Why doesn’t this article have a table in the Geography and climate section summarizing the average monthly high/low in temperature and the total precipitation per month. Such a table already exists in the article Geography and climate of Singapore, and it is entitled ‘Weather averages for Singapore’.

This table contains a basic summary of some of the most important climate variables for Singapore, and how they change throughout the year. The information that is currently in the Geography and climate section of this article is good, but doesn’t achieve this as well as the table does.

What do people think about including that table in this article? Joaq99 (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Addition of a part

I added a chunk about the British naval base in the "Japanese Occupation" part. Hope it works.Joshywawa (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive time, article issues

First, WOW, can we archive some talk here?

Second, this article is wrought with unverified claims and text that has a rather biased-seeming tone. If there are references for such claims, there ought to be citations. I find it difficult to believe, for example, that a sentence like this could escape citation or removal:

"Though general elections are free from irregularities and vote rigging, the PAP has been criticized for manipulating the political system through its use of censorship, gerrymandering, and civil libel suits against opposition politicians"

That is ONE example of several statements in the article that probably could be validated by references and are otherwise not NPOV or encyclopedic. I will stop by the article tonight and work on finding some references, but there's a larger cleanup task here for someone who is more knowledgeable. -- Forridean (T/C) 20:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

sorry wasnt it raffles who came up with the name "singapura"? 129.100.195.111 (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Democracy

NO discussion about Democracy is allowed in Singapore. Chinese Communists have parked their money in the Singapore dollar and fear the collapse of the Chinese yuan due to revolt of the working class. Why does Singapore not allow debate about it's Democracy? Singapore does not have a Democracy and is a State Run with people who must be in fear. People will never leave their money in a State of Fear as it's unsafe. Lack of ability to criticize a system is a socalist/communist state by definition. I wish the people of Singapore receive an independent voice which lacks colonialist elite / communist influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.154.63 (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  • This is my notice to the person hiding behind the anon IP address above for adding such weasel words to this page, you are hereby advice to provide all the relevant sources for your alleged statement of "NO discussion about Democracy is allowed in Singapore" or it will be strike off this page. Also, I have submitted your IP address to the admins, this is done to make you provide a responsible edit and not make allegations or conspiracy into Wikipedia. Please note that we will not stand for baseless accusations within the scope of Wikipedia project's integrity or take unfounded allegation from irresponisble individuals such as yourself for presentation to the world. --Dave1185 (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

How democratic is Singapore? Find out in the Economist Intelligence Unit's new survey: http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf (Answer: ranked 84th out of 167 countries in the world, below Albania and Malaysia but above Iraq. Any brave soul want to add this to main article?)

Wow.. congrat on the find! However, since the articles of the first ranked Sweden and the last ranked North Korea make no mention of their rankings, being somewhere in the middle of the ranking is hardly a thing to be excited about or noteworthy. --Vsion 08:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The survey has only just been published, so perhaps that's no surprise.
Singapore is not described as a "democracy", or a "flawed democracy" (like Malaysia), but a a third division "hybrid" of authoritarianism and democracy. That surely is noteworthy. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so it should have "encyclopedic" coverage of its subjects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.143.29 (talk • contribs)
I added that information to International rankings of Singapore, I find it quite interesting myself. Nonetheless, Singapore is still a potential Feature Article candidate, and several reviewers have advised against adding most of these rankings into the article. The article does mention Worldwide Press Freedom Index (140th out of 167) which is more well-known.--Vsion 02:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Singapore is not a democracy, nor a hyrid of democracy and something else. Singapore has democratic elements. It is not an "authoritarian democracy", nor a "democratic authoritarian state". It is a dominant-party republic with little checks and balances. Think French Revolution, without the guillotine, and without the massive faction upheavals. John Riemann Soong 10:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to Singapore for beating Iraq, which turned "democratic" thanks to American might! :D--Huaiwei 16:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I would hope (or expect) that between the 1st world and 3rd world countries in that "hybrid democracy" category, the 1st-world ones would beat the 3rd-world ones. What I find interesting is that Singapore shares this category with what seem (to me) to be mostly 3rd-world countries. -Amatulic 02:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Singapore's Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong himself mused that Singapore is "first world" economically, but "third world" socially.--Huaiwei 12:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
(reply to Amatulic) Taiwan, Hong Kong, and South Korea were in similar situation not too long ago. The resistance to change the political system is somehow stronger in Singapore. Or, one can argue that there hasn't been a serious event in Singapore that would have prompted the change, unlike in the other three Asian Dragons (Lee TengHui's rule, 1997-handover, corruption, etc.). --Vsion 15:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting observation. The 1997 handover of Hongkong might be a similar scale of event to the independence of Singapore several decades ago, but oddly the transformation from British rule to independence left Singapore's government in a more authoritarian state than the UK's. Maybe resistance to change is due to the one-party situation. Or maybe change simply isn't necessary because Singapore's current situation works perfectly well for them. And anyway, a "pure" democracy isn't necessarily a good thing if it means majority can trample on individual rights.
In my view, the only important thing sorely lacking in Singapore is a press free from censorship (and if Singapore were located in the European region, I believe the lack of a free press would disqualify Singapore from membership in the EU). On the other hand, when I visit Singapore, I find the Straits Times to be a remarkably unfettered newspaper (better quality than most US news sources), although overt criticism of the government doesn't really appear in it. -Amatulic 17:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
"Individual rights" wasn't the issue of the 1960s. Back then, British's overwhelming concern was that Singapore would become a communist state. That could easily have happened because of the Chinese majority and Singapore could have become the fifth column of communist expansion. This would be detrimental to Britain's interests in the region. For this reason, the British supported the "undemocratic" measure, Operation Coldstore, to arrest 100+ pro-communists under the Internal Security Act (ISA) in 1963. PAP's dominance started from there. I agree with your comments on local press, they virtually play no role in providing checks on government mismanagement and power abuse. --Vsion 19:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the statements regarding Singapore being authoritarian and having the highest per-capita execution rate in the world. I considered replacing "authoritarian" with less loaded terms such as "semi-democracy" or "illiberal democracy", but these terms are too vague.

I also don't see why a statistic on capital punishment belongs in an introduction: (1) the topic has already been dealt with in another section below, (2) using a high per-capita execution rate as evidence/support for Singapore's "authoritarian-ness" seems a bit sensationalist -- something like "...lacks a free press and...elections are manipulated by...", along with a source, would work better.

Meanwhile, I've added "(The) PAP dominates the political process...", along with Freedom House's country report on Singapore as a reference. Hopefully this is an acceptable and NPOV alternative! Leaf of Silver 14:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This article was quoted in a local Saipan daily

"Moreover, according to an online encyclopedia, Singapore 'is aggressively pushing for the permanent assimilation of these foreign workers by offering easier processing time for permanent residency or citizenship.'" See http://www.mvariety.com/calendar/dec/07/editorialpage/editorial01.htm

C.m.jones 23:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

More like "aggressively punishing PRs by imposing stiffer taxes, fees, military service and giving none of the benefits expected". -- 我♥中國 07:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Really meh. The government seems to treat its foreign talent better than its own citizens. The grass is greener ... John Riemann Soong 13:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That reminds me... recently my wife, a Singapore citizen, asked me to fill out a PR application (available here). The form asks me to tick a box declaring that I am the wife, child, or parent of a Singaporean citizen — but not husband or spouse! It made me think that being married to a Singaporean male counts for something, but being married to a Singaporean female doesn't matter. Admittedly the web site http://app.ica.gov.sg/serv_pr/per_res/app_for_pr.asp does say "spouse" but I thought the choices on the form were bizarre. -Amatulic 21:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, until as late as 1999, Singaporean women could not sponsor their foreign-born husbands for PR. It was quite a hugh issue back then, about the "bias" against foreign-born husbands, and was discussed quite fervently in Parliament. Bizarre as it is, what prompted the policy change had not much to do with gender equality, rather it was because Singapore was losing too many women because their families couldn't lived together here. Apparently, they forgot to update the form after the policy change. --Vsion 23:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Singaporean knows Chinese language,may i ask how many singaporean have been to China before? and singaporean knows English fluent also,How many singaporean have been to USA? Y not immigrate to USA?(What i meaning is not Singapore is not a good place to stay,but I know USA has more power. I am Chongqingnese,email me to j_dlsl@yahoo.com.ph) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnncff (talk • contribs) 15:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

About Shōnan

I was reading the Japanese version of this article when I came across this:

>>この後、日本による軍政が敷かれ、シンガポールは「昭南島（しょうなんとう）」と改名された。 (From 2.3 日本による占領 )

Translation: "After the Japanese army took control, Singapore was renamed 'Shōnantō'" (or 'Shōnan-tō', which means Shōnan Island, with the Shōnan already being explained in the English article)

>>なお、昭南島とは「昭和の時代に得た南の島」の意とされている。 (Also from 2.3 日本による占領 )

Translation: "This name was to mean 'southern island gained in the age of Shōwa'".

Doesn't this mean that the tō (island) bit is part of the name, making it Shōnantō?

Also, back when I was in school, the textbooks claimed that Shōnan (they romanized it as Syonan, though) meant "Light of the South", and the Japanese article refutes this completely, so shouldn't that be mentioned as well? The textbooks may have been corrected since then, though, so someone would have to check.

203.116.91.80 05:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that "romanisation" and "romaji" are different. Romaji is Japanese translation of Japanese to English by Japanese, romanisation is the same, but is done by English. "Shōnantō" is romaji, "Syonan-to" is romanisation. --203.117.28.221 03:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
"Romanji"? Never heard of the term. Sorry to be blunt, but do you bloody know what you're talking about? Because romanization is the transliteration of Japanese and rōmaji is what the bloody English alphabet is called in Japanese. 203.116.91.80 04:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not attempt to push your point if you do not study Japanese. You only make yourself look ignorant. Arigato. --121.6.64.153 15:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
糞ワロタｗｗｗｗｗお前こそ日本語分かってんのか？氏ねよクズがｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗ I'm Japanese and the other guy is right and you're just being stupid. Arigatoとかｗｗｗｗｗｗマジで氏ねｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗ 58.146.170.158 (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
俺、日本人のハーフですがなにか？ Also, some nonsense that's totally wrong is stated. I point out that it's nonsense. Thus I'm ignorant. Bright chap, aren't you? 203.116.91.80 02:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
As I have noted sections above, "Shōnan" and "Syonan" are the same. They are just two different ways to romanize the Japanese name. The former is in Hepburn romanization, the latter is the Nihon-shiki or Kunrei-shiki. For your arguments about Rōmaji and romanization, I agree that the both are not the same; the former means the Roman (Latin) alphabet, the latter means to represent sounds in a language written in another writing system by using the Roman (Latin) alphabet. For the anon (203.116.91.80) above, please be courteous when posting on talk pages.--Joshua Say "hi" to me!What have I done? 11:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like this page to be protected!

Hi all, I feel this page should be protected from anonymus editors and some new wikipedians. This is because a large chunk of the article has actually been deleted by some people we do not know. Such as the "economy" section, the growth forecasts of the first and second quarters have been deleted. Thanks. fatty 04:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to see this excellent article protected from anonymous and new Wikipedians. It is highly complete and well researched, for the most part. Preston McConkie (talk • contributions) 04:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Well, yes, until some new wikipedians come and edit the Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zheliel (talk • contribs) 00:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Singapore City cf. Singapore (state)

The infobox said that Singapore City is the largest city in Singapore. I've removed this because it's the only city in Singapore. Leaving it as it was could lead readers to assume the state contains cities other than Singapore City. Further, is it not true that the city and the state are co-terminous? Is there any part of Singapore state that is not a part of Singapore City? -- JackofOz 06:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Co-terminous - for the most part, yes. Unless you exclude outlying islands like Pulau Tekong or Pulau Ubin or the disputed Pedra Branca - all of which are pretty far from the city centre and the conurbation that is the main island. (These islands do not have significant built-up areas and thus should not be classed as 'urban' areas.) That said, as a fraction of the total land area of Singapore, these islands are of minor relevance, so I agree with your changes with the foregoing caveats in mind. 220.255.49.34 07:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't you agree that Sentosa is a pretty important island? It isn't the city exactly, so... Joshywawa (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sentosa is a rather important island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zheliel (talk • contribs) 00:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Malay Fighter Pilots, Military Role Determined by Race

"there were no Malay fighter pilots as of 1990, for example, and it is unclear whether there are any today."

BH: What do you think of our first Malay fighter pilot achievement?
DPM: I am happy for him, and proud of him. LTA Mohammad Yusri has made it based on his own merit, and if he continues to work hard should have a bright career ahead.

"The role they play is determined by their race;"

  • "The SAF is a microcosm of Singapore society. Just as we are committed to meritocracy as a basic principle for Singapore, meritocracy is a guiding principle for the SAF. What this means is that so long as a serviceman is committed to Singapore, dedicated to the SAF, and capable of performing the job that is required, his appointment and advancement will be based on qualification and merit." -- Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong; http://app.mfa.gov.sg/pr/read_content.asp?View,3676,#
  • "Stressing that integration in the SAF would proceed in tandem with nation-building, Col Lim added that there are a good number of Malay SAF officers, some with higher degrees, whose studies were sponsored by the SAF, and whether a Malay SAF officer makes it to a higher appointment depends solely on merit." -- Mindef responds to criticism over inexperienced scholars, soft soldiers, status of Malays; http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/263407/1/.html

I would be removing the lines in quotes from the article based on the above. --Adrian Teh (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion you made. However, if sources support the contention that prior to 1990, Malays or other nationalities/ethnicities ("race" is incorrect terminology) were excluded from being fighter pilots, then that is worth mentioning in the context of the military's improved demographic cross section. Prior to Yugoslavia breaking up, only Serbs were allowed to be officers, so a policy of segregation would hardly make Singapore unique in this regard. -Amatulic (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Alice✉ 21:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
A historical snippet of National Service in Singapore with regards to Malays can be found in Malay factor in national service, The Star (Malaysia), February 10, 2002. There is quite a bit of historical information in there and personally I think it would be more appropriate in the History section of National Service in Singapore instead of the main Singapore article. --Adrian Teh (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at Singapore Armed Forces#Manpower, which provides several solid sources regarding the SAF's discriminatory policies towards Malays, including a juicy quote from Loong-Loong. Jpatokal (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Very Poor Quality

The quality of this article is pretty in bad shape. I don't know the reason why someone removed almost all tags of citation need and vague. "Inline citation" is not an excuse, if so, reference is not necessary anymore. Information is basically outdated. Peacock is common everywhere in this article (of course including the article of Changi Airport), plus pos. and neg. statements are not in balance. Dead/invalid links are also common as well like: No. 3, 36, 59, 73, 81 or others. It makes references from these statements basically senseless. Coloane (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

They probably removed the tags you scattered because they thought they were inappropriately placed, unhelpful, in error (or a mixture of these and other reasons). Equally, it may have been because they are familiar with your abrasive editing style or perceive (rightly or wrongly) a conflict of interest with your usual interest in Hong Kong and Macau leading to an hyperbole of negativity.
I don't understand your point about " "Inline citation" is not an excuse, if so, reference is not necessary anymore." As an exception, could you write this in Portuguese or Chinese (traditional) (or email me) so I can try and understand what you're on about?
I would suggest providing counterbalancing references on this discussion page if you think our article is biased or "peacock words" and then I (or other editors) can insert them in the text with appropriate English wording.
Thanks for your interest in making this a better article. Alice✉ 21:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Alice for your timely response. I'm not one of the regular contributors here but I was recently alerted by an automated program which I designed & currently experimenting to detect, analyse & report on any troll-like behavioural pattern on targeted articles during my anti-vandals/trolls watch. In short, it's designed to throw up a lot of dirt quickly & easily on such individuals by trawling on their user's logs which will highlight key acts that will generate a profile rating & alerts if nec. Such reports will allow me to take prompt & appropriate actions on the article or individual concerned. The citation/vague tags removed were done with appropriate edit comments, wiki-linked to supporting articles, affected sections rewritten for clarity during my subsequent verification checks. I believe my follow-up edits have been met with an implicit consensus as there were no reverts or objections by the majority of watchful regulars & admins earlier. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Simplified Chinese name of Singapore?

Chinese the language divides into Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Chinese_character

Why is it wrong to put Simplified Chinese name of Singapore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profession (talk • contribs) 04:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Because in this case the characters are identical for both Simplified and Traditional Chinese. Hence there is no need to be so specific. b3virq3b (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In the phrase "新加坡共和囯" the Simplified character of 囯 is different to the Traditional character of 國. Please check on the similar usage of this character in articles such as Taiwan and People's Republic of China. Profession (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Profession is right. The "guo" ("country") character is different in Simplified Chinese (国) and Traditional Chinese (國). Besides that, Singapore officially uses Simplified Chinese. I am changing the template used in the article to note "Simplified Chinese". --Joshua Say "hi" to me!What have I done? 12:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
In addition to that, I have changed back the Chinese character of 新加坡 to just Chinese since it's identical in both Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese. Also I have changed the 新加坡共和国 (Chinese) to 新加坡共和国 (Simplified Chinese) in the row beyond the flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profession (talk • contribs) 14:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

section organisation

Methinks it would be best if "architecture" and "resources" got absorbed into other sections -- perhaps into the culture and economy sections respectively. As a city article as well as a country article, it might deserve an architecture section, but can we get beyond trite propagandish statements like, "The architecture of Singapore is varied, reflecting the ethnic build-up of the country?" The architecture of a lot of countries are varied ... ;-) Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 06:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Singapore sports school scepticism

Does it need a separate subsection? There's more about the school than the whole higher education system! Surely one sentence with a link to the sports school article would be enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.246.240.14 (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Singapore word origin

Singapore comes from Malay Singapura, “Lion-city,”. the cited text mentions Singapore comes from Malay Singapora, “Lion-city,” but it is possible that one element of its name had a more distant original source. Pora comes from Sanskrit puram, “city, fortress,” and is related to Greek polis, “citadel, city.” Singa– comes from Sanskrit siha, “lion,” and is familiar to us in the name Singh, which all male Sikhs use as at least one of their personal names. Interestingly, siha is probably related to Swahili simba, “lion,” but since lions are native to Asia as well as Africa, it is not known whether the word came into India from Africa or the other way around, or if both are from a third source.

Sanskrit and swahili are mentioned as alternative *distant* sources from which the word *may* have derived....

This is why I've changed Sanskrit to Malay...

(In a lot of languages including Tamil (one of the official languages) Singam -> Lion Puram -> City) That doesn't mean the root of the word singapore is from all these languages)

Mugunth(ping me!!!,contribs) 15:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, Parameswara is also a Hindu prince, who would have close association with traders from India. Malays is also fully aware of the difference of the two animals and they have different name and title. Singa (Lion - king of the beast) and Harimau (Tiger - warrior of the jungle) in Malay language. This knowledge would have easily come from traders from Arabs (from Africa trade), India (Pillars of Asoka), and China (Lion dance). Yosri (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Spam

Somebody spammed the "Colonial Rule" section. Stevv (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it Stevv (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Crime

It would be nice to have a "Crime and law enforcement" section in the article. Singapore has made headlines several times over the past four decades about their laws, crime rates, etc. It would be nice to have something here about it. WikiDon (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion is good but as per context-wise & depth, it would be more appropriate to add the suggested section in the 'Singapore Police Force' article instead. Besides, the Singapore article is very much 'bloated' at nearly 100kb in size now [1]. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it is a very good suggestion, considering that I was still pondering about what next to add into the SPF page. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Once the suggested section is ready, made a reference in the Singapore article & wiki-link it to the SPF article then. Kindly note that this new section may be highly susceptible to heated debates or vandalism esp by those who aren't impressed with our local tough laws & policing which I encountered during my overseas stays & travels. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Think I would have to patrol the SPF page more often then. Oh boy! --Dave1185 (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
If one is to check out the history logs & the edit comments (usually highly provocative [2]) clearly, it's no brainer to all how often the Singapore article & its related articles are been vandalised on a regular basis. To add insult to injury, even our legitimate discussion on this talk page was not spared! [3] It's no surprise to one that most of the IP vandals come from a certain region too. Besides contending with such folks, we still have to face with persistent Wiki trolls & POV crusaders (some make no bones of their actions being known}, where quite a number of our high profile articles were degraded (even GA class) or even deleted (on 'notability' grounds) en mass previously. They can fool some people (even the admins at WP:ANI!) but not all the people all the time! I strongly believe in the Law of Karma & it's just a matter of time these folks, and even the hard-core ones (Example 1), get their just desserts or 'RIP' one day (Example 2). -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"Self-government"

What does it mean to say that the PAP has won every election since "self-government" in 1959? Does that mean independence? Or were they ungoverned before then? Mookrit (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As Britain's former Crown Colony in SE Asia, Singapore was administered by the British for 144 years. "Self-government" refers to the status when the British granted the elected PAP in 1959, the power to govern S'pore except on foreign affairs and national defence matters. The self-government status ended when S'pore merged with the Federation of Malaysia in Sep 1963. On 9 Aug 1965, Singapore gained self independence after our separation from Malaysia as a result of political ideology clash and worsening racial tensions then. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
BRAVO! BRAVO! I couldn't have said it better myself. Cheers. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Article is too long

The article at present stands at 96 KB, which is very close to the limit of 100 KB ("Almost certainly should be divided"). The advice given at the 'article length page' is that writers should breaking up the main article into respective shorter articles elsewhere. The politics of Singapore is certainly too long, FTA and currency is not necessary in the main article. There's no need for such detailed write-up on the military here when there is a perfectly good article devoted to it. One could go on and on. There's no need to put in every single thing about Singapore in this main article. Please consider carefully what to ax off and what to leave remaining. 165.21.154.69 (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Danger Keep Out" Picture

The Chinese in that picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DangerKeepOut.jpg) is in Traditional Chinese, is it not? Notice the character "開", which is in Traditional Chinese (Simplified Form is "开")... I think it should be replaced. Just a suggestion. Makeru (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a terrible suggestion. Why don't you go to Singapore yourself and "correct" the sign, rather than complain about an image that's factually true? Oh yeah, Wikipedia is all about "notability" and "being encyclopedic", not facts.
Seems authentic. I do believe I've seen it being in traditional before. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
But isn't it that Simplified Chinese is the standard in Singapore? So I think that picture should be replaced with a picture similar to this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Quadrilingual_danger_sign_-_Singapore_%28gabbe%29.jpg), because it is in Simplified Chinese... Makeru (talk) 06:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
While simplified Chinese is the official script, traditional script is still often used, especially in signboards and banners for shops, schools, etc. Perhaps, because some people find it more aesthetically pleasing.
It is possible that that signboard was simply made by an old stencil, or the stencil was made by an old die, pre- or during the the transition to simplified Chinese.
Furthermore, despite what Simplified Chinese says, I recall that Malaysia was still using traditional Chinese as recently as 10 years ago, maybe up to the present day. Malaysia does a lot of work for Singapore, and it is likely that the sign stencils were made there.
Either way, nobody in Singapore bats an eyelid if the sign were in traditional Chinese. I won't lose sleep, whichever image is used.--Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, OK then. Thanks for hearing me out... it'll still be great though if the pic be replaced... just a suggestion ^_^ Makeru (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't be great, and it's clearly not "just a suggestion".
Why fix something if it isn't broken? 聪明就好，不好太过聪明。。。 Kiang dio ho, mai gei kiang! --Dave1185 (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputes

The dispute with Malaysia needs a better source. It might be since I'm not from Singapore and don't really know the Singaporean media culture, but "Singapore Window" (http://www.singapore-window.org/) doesn't exactly seam like a reliable source. It's not even on Wikipedia. Glovestealer (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly and precisely, and I quote you: "doesn't exactly seam like a reliable source. It's not even on Wikipedia"...? The source of news for the site is from Reuters, I don't see any problem with that, do you? --Dave1185 (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a second hand source. I can put anything on the internet and say it's from Reuters, CNN or God, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Glovestealer (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It will be good if we can find more reliable sources, maybe direct quotes from Reuters or governmental sources. But before we find contradictory information to the content that comes from a more reliable source, the content should stay.Mhching (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I concur, I never meant to imply that the content should be removed, although I think a more reliable source would be in place. I would find one myself, but as I've said I'm not all that familiar with Singaporean media. Glovestealer (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Due to the page being vandalised again just after the last protection, I have requested and succeeded in getting it to be protected again from persistent vandals for another six months. Please note, thank you. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Singaporean Wikipedia?

Does anyone here know of an exclusively Singaporean Wikipedia? I recall coming across a wikipedia that was not wikipedia.org, but was a wikipedia with a Singaporean URL, but I don't recall what the address was. I have searched but cannot find it. It was designed to be a wikipedia exclusively for Singaporeans. I would like to look at it again, if only I can find it. Thanks in advance to anyone who might be able to point me in the right direction. (And sorry in advance for not speaking about this article). --RisingSunWiki 18:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia.sg is a domain parker, so that is pretty much nothing. But there is no wikipedia that is dedicated to only Singapore. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
There used to be, because I saw it; I just can't remember the URL. --RisingSunWiki 15:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
What about http://sg.wikipedia.org? Bjelleklang - talk 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
No, that's not it. The site I'm thinking of is in English. --RisingSunWiki 10:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The 'en' and 'sg' prefixes of Wikipedias refer to its language medium, not its national focus. Please realise this. There are no country-oriented Wikipedias with the "wikipedia.org" domain name. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 12:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Haven for Chinese-Indonesian white collar criminals?

When is this unflattering little fact about to be inserted? I quote: [4]

In case you missed it- I'll keep coming back for a friendly chat.Starstylers (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

When you can show that this "fact" can be proven in accordance to WP:OR and WP:NPOV, and that this "fact" should be significant enough to be planted in the main country article.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: With due diligence, pse take a closer look at the community response on the initiator's talkpage and his edit history to see whether it's worth your while to engage in another ad hominen debate here. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Note that his actions on my talk page has resulted in his BLOCK following a series of personal attacks on three other editors as well as a string of disruptive edits and copyvios. Do you believe in karma now? --Dave1185 (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Reply: To all practising Buddhists, we do believe in the Law of Karma (& our guardian Devas too) & always strive to be mindful of our words & actions, so as not to cause any possible harm to others & faced its ugly consequences later. Since he refuses to heed the communitiy warnings & persisted with his malicious attacks on numerous editors with impunity, I knew his days are 'numbered' soon (I was expecting within the next 5 days) but still proceeded to post a message in order to spell out clearly the unwholesome acts he's causing so far, & the possible consequences that he may faced hoping he may relent next. Afterwards, I started to do the 'countdown' to see how soon his 'doom day' will come - it was finally realised two days later! Looking at the tone of attacks in the edit history of our Singapore article previously (I initiated a request for semi-protection earlier), I'll not be surprised that the previous POV edits or vandalism committed anonymously, were likely committed by the likes of such detractors or their sympathetic supporters too. At times, I'm rather disappointed by the SGpedia community poor abilitiy to detect or deal with these hardcore disruptors. As such, I hope to help by posting timely 'early warnings' , in order to cast a spotlight on them to elicit a closer check & follow-ups, esp those with admin powers, to nip the problem once & for all for the common good of Wikipedia in the long run. Amituofo -- Aldwinteo (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Two days, not one, as my 'countdown' has already began from the day of my first message to him on 24 July 2008. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Climate section

Hi. I noticed that there's an unsourced "fact" in the geography and climate section on the maximum wind speed being recorded in May 2007 being about 150 km/h. I have done a quick Google search and found no proof to this. Perhaps it should be removed. 222.165.56.171 (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Shanmugam Murugesu

The hanging of Shanmugam Murugesu in 2005 surely ranks as a major historical event in Singapore. There is a separate page for him here but there should be some mention on the main page.Ykral (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I was rather amused & even felt incredulous by such a posting here, along with its provocative header earlier. Does the same rationale apply also for the numerous previous cases, such as this much publicised case in 2005 too? Did you know that S'pore has been hanging convicted drug traffickers since its Independence at our famous 'holiday chalet' in Changi for decades now? Fyi, Singapore is not the only country that hanged convicted traffickers for a kilo or less (min 15mg for heroin) of banned substances today. Just across the causeway, our neighbour, Malaysia, has similar penal laws like ours too, courtesy of our common history & colonial heritage. Go check Amnesty International or other human-rights related sites if you want more info on capital punishment meted out for drug-related offences in other countries too. In this Internet age, it would be wise & prudent to do your homework with due diligence first, before making any comments, whether academic debate or otherwise, esp in Wikipedia in future. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Aldwinteo refuses to admit the controversy in Singapore itself about the killing of Mr. Murugesu, but the facts and demonstrations that happened cannot be denied. Obviously some people in Singapore are still 'proud' of what many others in the world view as a brutal and ignorant murder. Also, your edit of my post removed the word marijuana, while the case you cite involved heroin. Speaking of self-education, I have found such lack of distinction to be characteristic of those Singaporeans who supported the kill. Thank you.Ykral (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor. Venting your greviances regarding a person's affiliations do not and will not help your case. If you wish to be heard out, please give people evidence that this issue is of signficiant historical import and occured on a sufficiently large scale to be mentioned on the main Singapore article. Simply stating your personal opinion that Shanmugam Murugesu should be mentioned on the main page is irrelevant if you do not have the sources to back up your contributions. This issue may be of paramount importance to you if you are a strong proponent of human rights, but remember that Wikipedia is not catered solely to human rights, or drug convictions, or any specific topics. It is for everyone and everything, and be aware that because it must take an all-rounded view, minor issues may not make the cut for wide-reaching main articles like Singapore. You may wish to look at History of the Republic of Singapore instead, but be aware that the relative importance of your contribution must still and always be objectively and neutrally evaluated against the other contributions in the article. If you are concerned that your stance on human rights might prevent you from making a proper NPOV contribution, do highlight this to your fellow contributors, and we will help in whatever way we may. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 11:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your provocative "marijuana" header was renamed by another editor, and not by me! See the diff here. Being a practising Buddhist myself, I've my own strong misgivings on taking of another life at any place (unless in times of war or life-threatening situation etc), let alone being 'proud' of such act, or to advocate any support for capital punishment, which deny an individual the opportunity to repent & reform in good conscience. I'm disappointed by your poor interpretation & unfair association made on my previous comment, when what I highlighted earlier was ONLY the history & the facts of the issue at hand! It's your POV & agenda, that draw my attention & concern as per the guidelines & policies of Wikipedia earlier. Ask yourself honestly why your header was renamed subsequently & the additional comments posted by uninvolved editors above? Why not try to post such comments again at the talkpage of WikiProject Malaysia & see for yourself what is the outcome then? For your own good, it pays to sit back, re-read & reflect, before you shoot your mouth off in Wikipedia, or anywhere else online next time. NOTE: Please don't put words in my mouth or resort to unprovoked personal attack again, as it may lead to unwholesome karma next. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to request that you tone down the tone of your reply. Do try to assume good faith about any supposed 'agendas'. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 12:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
As per the context of the matter, one should focus on the essence of the message rather than on the form itself, or exercise due diligence before making any belated comment. Why would an individual (aka IP 63.193.144.79 from AT&T, Texas, USA) continues to spend almost all of his time in talkpages raising 'questions' or giving unsolicitated 'commentary' on 14 Jun 2008 (as IP 63.193.144.79) rather than doing any meaningful edits to date? Has anyone check out & compare the similarity in tone & source of edits done anonymously from this same IP and an earlier one on 25 Apr 2006 coming from AT&T, Texas, USA too? I meant what I said & will do according to what I said too. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
You have already failed to 'focus on the essence of the message rather than on the form itself'. It does not matter whether the user in question has been an active contributer or not - denying him any credibility to his argument on the basis of him having not made significant edits to Wikipedia articles is irrational and unfair. Not having been active does not make one any less capable of understanding situations and making a valid point. Also, highlighting your own observations in order to attribute a sinister trait to the user unfairly denies others the right to be heard in the case that the person does have a valid point to be made. Furthermore, I believe you are well aware of the existence of shared IPs which make your accusations of malicious intent a hasty conclusion at best. Remember, assume good faith. Ariedartin JECJY Talk 08:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to bore u with details about my past experience, just to say I'm no newbie on such matter, whether in Wikipedia or in real life. One should not just focus exclusively on the tactical aspect (form), but also on the long term strategy (essence) too. Spare me the high dosage of AGF - reflect & exercise due diligence & u may be able to appreciate what I meant in view of the chaotic working dynamics & past abuses in Wikipedia, no thanks to the poorly defined easy rules here. I've said what is needed to say earlier - whether u or anyone else accept it or not, u folks are entitled to your own view & conclusion, as I'm entitled to mine too. Your unsolicitated comments will not change my opinion now or tomorrow, nor will it stop me in monitoring or to take any necessary action on any likely trolls, disruptors, sockpuppets encountered during my patrols, or via automated alerts received from my little bots in future (I'm a techie but not the conventional type). Whether one's intention is good or bad, their karma will tell the rest of the story for all to see later, as well as its consequences too. On this note, I end my conversation here. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Digital Concierge

Hello people

I would like to get my request reviewed by an established editor and see if it fits this article. It would be great if the link [www.digitalconcierge2go.com] is added to the travel section of the site. It is about a mobile concierge meant to help Singapore visitors with information and discounts all over the city.

Thanks a bunch!! Saurabh itpl (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A few ideas to help you along: Is the website notable and central to the article? Is it an authority on the subject matter? Is it considered a vital source of information by the public in general? Is it one of the most reliable and extensive sources of information that readers often seek? Ariedartin JECJY Talk 12:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Location of Singapore

The image that shows the location of Singapore isn't very useful. The zoom level is insufficient. Right now Singapore is 3 dark pixels. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A kind soul should place an arrow.

--zheliel I know I'm pro!You should believe me. 08:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Small edit F15

I cannot edit this page (protected) but it seems that the link to the republic of Singapore caption of the picture of the F-15 is redundant (referring to the same page as it is on), can someone edit this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.208.111.0 (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Virtual Reality Tour of Singapore

I'm working on a website that brings visitors on a Virtual Reality Tour of Singapore. http://www.singaporevr.com/

There is not much VRs right now but I'm growing the collection weekly. Website was launched 20th Feb 2008. If the moderators of the Singapore Wiki find it useful, I hope that it can be added as an external link. --Arampan (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Singapore/Archive_4&oldid=1136233363"