User talk:Smuconlaw

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

About Non-constituency Member of Parliament[edit]

Hi Smuconlaw, I am Spring Roll Conan, a Chinese Wikipedian who now started to translate the article above. In the article, one of the sentence suggested that many voters actually want to have a PAP-led government and a "luxury" to vote for opposition politicians. But according to the source of this sentence (though I am actually reading the Lianhe Zaobao version), this is just the attitude of the voters from constituencies which elected a opposition MP (at that time). And it seems that the attitude is not linked to the NCMP scheme. Can you read the article again and told me that am I wrong or not? Also, I would like to ask if there have been a Chinese translation of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, as I'm going to follow up several other articles concerning Singaporean politics. Much thanks, --Spring Roll Conan ( Talk · Contributions ) 14:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Spring Roll Conan. I had a look at the source article, and this is what it said:

Defending the NCMP scheme against criticisms that it did not constitute 'real opposition', he pointed out that NCMPs had full debating rights in Parliament, and the scheme gave opposition politicians the chance to establish themselves and strengthen their positions in subsequent general elections.

The People's Action Party (PAP), he added, instituted and then expanded the scheme because it acknowledged both the desire among Singaporeans for alternative voices and the need for an opposition to represent the diverse views in society.

...

Besides the NCMP scheme, another hot topic was whether it was right for opposition wards Potong Pasir and Hougang to be disadvantaged in upgrading programmes that were funded using taxpayers' money.

Polytechnic student Matthew Zachary Liu asked: 'Shouldn't a good government be fair to all citizens, regardless of their political vote?'

Mr Lee replied that the programmes were national ones that applied to everyone, including those in opposition wards.

However, when a choice had to be made on who would go first, and two estates were of equal merit, then the one that supported the Government at the polls would be chosen.

Mr Lee argued that people in Potong Pasir and Hougang, in fact, wanted a PAP government, but would rather vote in an opposition MP.

In other words, he said, 'they are depending on somebody else to vote for the PAP so that they can have the luxury of voting for Mr Chiam (See Tong) or Mr Low (Thia Khiang)'.

'Now, if everybody in Singapore does that, we are in trouble. So there has to be an incentive to vote for the Government. And going first or second, well, that is just that little bit of difference.'

So you are right – the Prime Minister's comment about residents of Potong Pasir and Hougang wanting to have a PAP government but to elect opposition MPs for their own constituencies was not related to the NCMP scheme. The student who worked on this part of the Wikipedia article must have read the newspaper article wrongly. I will update the sentence. Thanks for pointing out the error, and all the best for your translation! — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed articles written as assignments would somehow result in some inaccuracy. By the way, I have raised a topic on clarification of one of the sentences at Talk:Non-constituency Member of Parliament. Please take a look and make the necessary changes. Thank you and wishing your students all the best in their Wikipedia assignments! HYH.124 (talk) 08:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello SMUconlaw, as I have finished translation work for several paragraphs in the article, I would like to raise several points as below:

  • The first general election after the introduction of NCMP scheme was held in 1984, not 1988. Though, in that election no defeated opposition candidates accepted an NCMP seat, thus no such seats are allocated to anyone. So, for the last paragraph of the section "Becoming an NCMP", I think that the 1984 case is a better example. Also, there is a need to explain it in the subsequent list of NCMPs.
  • That paragraph concerning notable points illustrated by Sylvia Lim and Steve Chia during their tenure as NCMPs may be considered as off-topic - in Chinese Wikipedia it may hamper an article's chance to get promoted as a GA, so I intend to omit this part in my translation.

Then, again, I would like to ask whether there are any Chinese translation for the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore - the problem is not being resolved last time. Hope this will not bother you, and feel free to reply about my doubt here. BTW, thanks for your previous advice and have a great 2015!--Spring Roll Conan ( Talk · Contributions ) 09:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks again for pointing out another mistake. I've updated the article. It's entirely up to you to decide what you think should or should not be in the Chinese Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any official Chinese translation of the Constitution. Maybe you could ask the National Library if one has ever been produced (I doubt it). There seems to be an unofficial one on Baidu Baike at [1] but I don't know how complete or accurate it is. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Baynham[edit]

Hello, Thanks for the photo of the Baynham Crest and other Baynham related links. I am researching the Baynham family history. Do have a specific interest in Baynham family history? Cheers, Alan Baynham — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baynhama (talkcontribs) 09:00, 16 November 2014

Hi, Alan (@Baynhama:). Actually, I can't remember working on anything Baynham-related. What specific articles or files are you referring to? It may be that I incidentally dealt with some files in the course of doing some administrative work at the Wikimedia Commons. In any case, I'm afraid I don't have a particular interest in the Baynham family. All the best for your research! — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I think you were referring to the fact that I renamed the file "File:Baynham arms, Saint Michael and All Angels, Mitcheldean, Gloucestershire, UK - 20100712.jpg". Yes, this was part of routine maintenance work at the Wikimedia Commons. You should get in touch with Lobsterthermidor, who created the article "Thomas Baynham" and who seems to have an interest in English genealogy and heraldry. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the namecheck and thanks for your work on the file. That photo was taken before I invested in a tripod! Yes, Alan, I am interested in the Baynham family, chiefly for its associations with the Denys family of Gloucestershire. The 4th wife of Sir Walter Denys, son and heir of Maurice Denys (c. 1410–1466) of Gloucestershire was Alice Walwyn, who is depicted as one of the two wives of Thomas Baynham (died 1499/1500) on his monument in Micheldean Church. See File:BrassWivesOfThomasBaynhamMicheldean.jpg. Hope that helps. For any further discussion, contact me on my own talk page. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC))

User:Smuconlaw/By-elections in Singapore[edit]

Hello, Dr Jack Lee, I'm just bringing to your attention to the abovementioned draft. I would like to ask, are presidential by-elections (in the case a President cease to be one before the end of his term of office) provided by the law? If so, the subject of the draft should be "parliamentary/MP by-elections" instead of just "by-elections". If not, why? Thanks! HYH.124 (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The term by-election is generally used to refer only to elections held to fill vacancies arising in Parliament. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary defines the term as "[t]he choice of a parliamentary representative at a time other than that of a General Election" (emphasis added). But thanks for raising the issue. If it's appropriate, I may include some information about what happens when the President's term of office ends before an election is normally due. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to improve list[edit]

Sorry for disturbing. If you have the time, you are hereby invited to improve the list of current Singapore MPs. The list is a "by-product" of the list of current Indian chief ministers. Feel free to decline the invitation if you are busy. Thank you! HYH.124 (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Vanguard building[edit]

I declined your speedy deletion request on the redirect Vanguard building on procedural grounds. However, I have nominated it for WP:Redirects for discussion, using the reason you gave in your request for deletion. There is a Redirects for Discussion tag on Vanguard building, which will take you to the site of the discussion, should you wish to elaborate further in the discussion. Thank you. Safiel (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks! — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Bailii template[edit]

Transferred discussion to "Template talk:Cite BAILII#Bailii template" and responded to it there.SMUconlaw (talk) 09:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Tractatus de legibus et consuetudinibus regni Angliæ[edit]

Hello SMUconlaw! I just wanted to apologize for drudging up an old feud in the middle of your Reference Desk question. Hopefully the answers were nevertheless helpful, if you ignore the rest of it :) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, was that what it was all about? Yes, the answers were most helpful. Thanks! — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Brother[edit]

Hello Brother, thank you for grammar edit in Jessica Mila Face-smile.svg i need your help, please see this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Untitledjessicamila.PNG and delete this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/9/9e/20150202171246%21Untitledjessicamila.PNG and delete this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/9/9e/20150202161055%21Untitledjessicamila.PNG thank you very much Brother. Jagoganteng 18:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have removed it from the article and nominated it for deletion. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

2015 GA drive[edit]

Happy Chinese New Year! The 2015 Singapore GA drive will start soon and I am currently selecting articles. To recognise the excellent contributions from your students, I intend to include ten articles from your project.

If I remember correctly, you previously approved the selection of four articles, namely Doctrine of bias in Singapore law, Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, Relevant and irrelevant considerations in Singapore administrative law and Vandalism Act (Singapore).

What do you think about adding Judicial independence in Singapore, Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor, Re Fong Thin Choo and Shadrake v Attorney-General to the list? For Separation of powers in Singapore, the unregistered editor (who started the spurious neutrality dispute) is unlikely to return and a thorough review may even improve neutrality.

I look forward to seeing the drafts for By-elections in Singapore, Judicial system of Singapore, Procedural impropriety in Singapore administrative law, Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni,Threshold issues in Singapore constitutional law and Sedition Act (Singapore) in mainspace.

Rest assured that as with last year, I will do my best to handle issues that do not require specialist legal knowledge.

--Hildanknight (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Smuconlaw. You have new messages at Template talk:Talk page stalker.
Message added 15:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NeilN talk to me 15:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Sedition Act (Singapore)[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Some questions with the Penal Code[edit]

Hello, I am not sure if you are very familiar with Singapore's law, but I have a question with regard to the Penal Code of Singapore, specifically the Sexual Offences part. If you do not mind entertaining the question, I will post the question here. If you do not wish to answer, then it's all right. HYH.124 (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on criminal law, but go ahead and ask and I'll see if I can answer your question. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I shall ask without logging in. In Section 376(2)(b) of the Penal Code, does another person (C) include the person (A) himself/herself? If not, would it be a crime if the another person (C) was the person (A) himself/herself? This is because even Section 376A(1)(c) stated that that "another person" can also include the person himself/herself? 175.156.243.222 (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
First off, I should say that this should not be construed as legal advice. If you require legal advice, you should consult a practising lawyer. As for the question, I think it is more appropriate if I e-mail you using the "Email this user" link. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I replied to your email. 175.156.243.222 (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

A Walk Across America[edit]

Hello,

Your review of the above is most welcome. Please note that I have posted answers to your concerns on the DYK nomination. Your attention to the nomination will be appreciated.

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Since posting a reply to your response to the nomination's review, I have decided to supply cites throughout the entire article. Please give me a couple of days to do so before taking any further action. The result may surprise and please you.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Take your time. The backlog at DYK is quite long, so it'll take a while for the DYK volunteer to get to your nomination. — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Pardon my sloth, but I have been indisposed for a few days. I have now made changes that I believe will lead you to approve this DYK nomination. Thank you for your review.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Legitimate expectation[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for R. v. North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for By-elections in Singapore[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v. Attorney-General[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Procedural impropriety in Singapore administrative law[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Question on recent reverts[edit]

Hi there, regarding to your question on your recent revert of my contributions, please note that I did not change the date manually (for example if you was thinking that I'm typing the date). It was actually automatically updated when the tools I'm using trying to detect any American spelling or date formats in the article. Thank you. ~ Muffin Wizard ;) 12:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying that. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Some points about Singapore politics-related articles[edit]

Thanks for your previous help which results in my translation of Non-constituency Member of Parliament promoted as a GA in Chinese Wikipedia. May we continue this mutual-assistance in my upcoming translations on other similarly-themed articles (but no interest on law articles). But my purpose to write there is I've brought an urgent question. One of the local users in zhwp keep deleting the section "law of large numbers" in the local version of the article "Group Representation Constituency", claiming this is bullsh!t when arguing it is a norm when GRC seats more than SMC seats (before he gets to know that technically the GRC seats can be reduced to around 1/3-1/4 of total seats in the Parliament) and the GRC system have nothing to do with such type of the law of large numbers. When I and @HYH.124 recover the section, he keep up revert. What do you think on this issue? Do you think that it is important to have it retain or it can just be axed? (Previously I've also talk with other users on the topic of trimming sections, in some cases they don't tell me why should having it retained, but to go ahead; in some cases editors did tell me why it should be there.) I would like to hear from you. Regards, --Spring Roll Conan ( Talk · Contributions ) 13:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's not a crucial section and can be left out. In the English Wikipedia article, the section was included by my students who prepared the article for an assignment. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)