Jump to content

Talk:2015 Singaporean general election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Renaming article

[edit]

Should we just rename it to 17th Singaporean General Election instead of "Next"? It just sounds so.... odd. Zhanzhao (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)  Done I wanted to use 17th Singaporean General Election, but then I saw that there was already a move in the past to: Singaporean general election, 2011, therefore I wanted to be compliant with the article name, exchanged 2011 to 2017. --Never stop exploring (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency, this should be renamed to Singapore (instead of Singaporean) general election, 2015. That was the naming convention used for the 2001, 2006, and 2011 Wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfanderson68 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information for the voters / getting background information about the election process?

[edit]

Hi Guys, I just saw: http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015/08/newbie-guide-to-general-election-in-60s/ with this Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuENDYr5jBA and I think this should be included in the current article, because it's a bit (sorry for the critics): "dry" and as someone interested in the process I would like to see a section about this topic here if possible. Thanks! --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the season starts (can be freely added to Critism)

[edit]

Another issue is also the tight timeline in Singapore, tonight at noon they will nominate 89 seats in the parlaiment, right? The article does not help or try to give details for newbies on the topic of the process: Reference: https://sg.news.yahoo.com/ge2015--nomination-day-1-sep--polling-day-11-sep-081218600.html

It would be very helpful to read more about this general topic here:

  1. Is your’s, your family’s and of Singapore’s future important to you?
  2. If you said YES to 1, do you think the candidate(s) in your ballot paper will be able to deliver the future you want?
  3. If you said NO 1, it does not matter who you vote for. So VOTE, PLEASE DON’T SPOIL THE VOTE EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPOIL IT.
  4. If you said YES to 2, have you understood who the candidate(s) is(are) and where they stand on issues that is of concern to you? Have you done sufficient research to be able to be honest to yourself to come to a decision?
  5. If you said NO to 2, are you prepared to find out why you think they cannot deliver the future you want?
  6. If you said NO to 5, it does not matter who you vote for. So VOTE, PLEASE DON’T SPOIL THE VOTE EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPOIL IT.
  7. If you said YES to 5, do spend time reading, talking to family, friends, colleagues or just about any other Singaporean voter. Do make sure that you get to hear from all sides not just one side.

Do be aware that what is called Mainstream Media (MSM), which especially in the Singapore context, has very low credibility in terms of being fair, balanced and critical. These MSM include the newspapers, TV and radio owned and operated by Singapore Press Holdings and MediaCorp. These entities are government-linked companies and have never been known to challenge or be critical of government policies. Investigative and critical reporting is NOT what they can ever do (or to be fair, allowed to do).

Having said all of that, do take about 10 minutes to listen to this TEDx talk that discusses how entities, like governments and political parties, would do all that they can to astroturf opinion and understanding of issues. Don’t be lulled by catchphrases, innuendoes, carrots, meat etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU

Majulah Singapura! or prepare for elections #ge2015 --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huggi: to address your concerns, I find Yahoo Singapore to be quite fair in their reporting, and BBC, AFP and other international news outlets generally increase their Singapore coverage during election times based on past experience. And the Straits Times is still reliable when using them for non-opinionated raw facts - i.e. who's contesting where, constituent numbers, etc. We'll be fine - Wikipedia has tided the last few elections, though there were moments when it did escalate to AN/ANI/Third opinion/RS, but that just shows that there are tools and systems in place counter advocacy/soapboxing from external parties. (Just for fun, have a read of Scientology and the Internet)Zhanzhao (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nonpartisanism should be the rule. Decline to state, Apolitical, Non-partisan democracy should be allowed in the See also section. As you already wrote from your experience, there will be: Astroturfing, Internet troll and maybe also State-sponsored internet sockpuppetry. But it's okay if you "censor" my Variantology. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline to state, Apolitical, Non-partisan democracy would be you imparting your opinion about this election to the article though. Astroturfing and Internet troll are safe to include (since it does not finger any entity/side). Through its usage here is so wide/vague as to make it quite useless for the article. See Manual_of_Style's See_also_section for more accurate usage. State-sponsored internet sockpuppetry is a very explicit claim which requires sourcing that links it directly to this election(article). Zhanzhao (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a visitor and my opinion does not count anyway. It's more about showing alternative views which are available, I'm for transparency for everyone. Scientology and the Internet is (in my POV) a "religion to make money". politics does not need religion it's only about money, therefore transparency is key.
Actually my link to the Scientology article was just to show how Wikipedia's community and policies easily deflected the intentions of said church, who had previously tried something even drastic and bigger scale. Anyways, clear sourcing to reliable and verifiable sources should deal with your desire for transparency. Especially for potentially divisive articles like this, its important to keep in mind the whole of the 2nd of the 5 pillars. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zhanzhao I agree on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and learning by example is a good thing anyway :) --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

to include a new section the first past the post system

[edit]

This would be very help to the readers who are trying to understand the election. with link of course to First-past-the-post voting Afterall, this is the process supporting the whole election. Haaaa (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure. Past elections do not have a section dedicated to the first-past-the-post voting, so I'm not sure if adding the section helps. 2679D (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Observing policies while editing.

[edit]

Just to repeat and emphasize what I mentioned to deal with the expected increase in activity here due to the upcoming election:

Per Wikipedia policy we are still expected to only use reliable sources as it is defined. Best thing is, keep emotions out of it, stay objective, and stick to the facts, and follow wikipedia policies when adding content. Also please remember, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is based on Verifiability, not truth. Sounds harsh, but please do read that article to understand why this is in place.

Do remember that whatever floodgates anyone wishes to open, can easily backflow in the opposite direction. Policies were developed/evolved to prevent this. Zhanzhao (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being inquisitive

[edit]

Forgive me for being inquisitive here. In "Information for the voters / getting background information about the election process?", you mentioned about MSM (SPH, MediaCorp) having low credibility in terms of being fair, balanced and critical, and they are government-linked companies and cannot do investigative and critical reporting.

I don't find them not credible nor unreliable. SPH and MediaCorp are quite fair, balanced and critical in terms of their reporting of news. Like, for example, Today is insightful, and provides thought-provoking commentaries and analysis, and Channel NewsAsia also goes into the stories behind the headlines. Like, this general election, things that happened in the last 4-5 years can be mentioned again, this is quite a compilation. But I do acknowledge that there were also times where some international reports tend to be not credible. So yeah.

Take for example the Yahoo link in Further reading. International reports speculate that, prior to the announcement of the election dates, 2015 will see a general election. However, given that the Prime Minister earlier said that the election dates "may not be when everyone's expecting", what happens if the elections end up to be early next year? So we try to say "this year or next year" in local context. Actually, the 1997 election was held in January, nomination day was before Christmas 1996 and polling day was the day after New Year. It was when the PM announced in Parliament in July that he had convened the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee in May or so that they actually verified the hints.

In addition, no point to include a Criticism section without reliable evidence. I tried. It didn't work.

But anyway, there is a "How To Vote" video currently aired on TV channels. http://video.toggle.sg/en/series/sg-votes-2015-how-to-vote/ep1/342340 Can I add this in? 2679D (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing sentence

[edit]

At 12.25am on 12 September 2015, the PAP team for Ang Mo Kio Group Representation Constituency was declared to have won the division, putting the PAP's seat tally at 22 seats, and thus formed the government. The total votes is 78.63%.

The above sentence, currently in our article is unsourced, not great English and also doesn't make much sense. If 45 seats are need for a majority, the PAP having 22 seats wouldn't guarantee they could form the government. To be fair, no one ever realisticly thought they wouldn't form the government, but this result didn't significantly affect that. The only thing I can see it did is allow Lee Hsien Loong to return as Prime Minister, if the PAP formed the government. Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can be taken out since the full results are in. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Description change

[edit]

I think it's inaccurate to call the article the Singapore's 17th parliamentary general election. It's the 17th general election, yes, but the first five general elections prior to independence in 1965 were not for the Parliament of Singapore, but for the Legislative Council of Singapore and the Legislative Assembly of Singapore. The first parliamentary election was in 1968, forming the 2nd Parliament of Singapore. The 1st Parliament of Singapore was the renamed Legislative Assembly from 1965-1968. To avoid confusion, with people thinking that the 17th Parliament was formed, I will rename the description to Singapore's general election to form its 13th Parliament. starship.paint ~ KO 02:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I really don't see how the numbering (either of them) is particularly useful, especially given how elections and the legislature have evolved over time. Perhaps best to just do away with it. Number 57 19:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested minor edits

[edit]
  1. Shouldn't the vote swing for Hougang and Punggol East SMCs be based on their respective by-elections (i.e. 2012 and 2013)?
  2. What is the reason for removing SPP as the third party? 2679D (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lina néji

[edit]

Lina Néji est une fille pas comme les autres. Gentille,adorable,sérieuse, elle brave tous ses obstacles pour subvenir à ses besoins. Née le 3 août 2005 elle vit en tunisie avec sa famille. sa meiileure amie yara — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123041344lol (talk • contribs) 20:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Singaporean general election, 2015. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GE2015 Redirect

[edit]

Is there any reason GE2015 redirects to this article, rather than that of any other election in the same year? If not I propose creating the page General Elections in 2015 to link to the relevant pages, rather than giving preferential treatment to this one. 131.111.5.131 (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a list – National electoral calendar 2015. Presumably GE2015 redirects here because it's the only country that uses the term. We had a general election in the UK in 2015 but it was never called GE2015. Number 57 20:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post-election events

[edit]

Should we include the post-election events for the GE2015? I've noticed from the GE2006 and GE2011 (as well as PE2011 and PE2017, at time of post) where there were columns for the post-elections were included in the article, so should we do the same for this article as well? This includes:

  • New Cabinet
  • Overseas Vote Counts
  • Non-constituency Member of Parliament
  • Result Analysis (plus accuracy from the Sample Counts)
  • Other Party reactions
  • Opening of 13th Parliament
  • Legacy of the election (such as Social Media and future elections, like BE2016)

It would be a good idea to know what happened to the future (like what I just saw in international elections, like Canada, UK and USA), but I let you decide whether the post-election events would be included in the article. Thank You!

P.S.: could you remove the edit lock for the GE2011? I believe that no other users were vandalizing the article anymore since it was really old... (Sculture65 (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Prime Minister is appointed, not elected

[edit]

Not so familiar with editing here, is there a way to change the "Elected" Prime Minister to "Appointed" in the info box?

Article 25(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore states that "The President shall appoint as Prime Minister a Member of Parliament who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament" (emphasis added). I have noticed that this error is also present in other General Election articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.66.128.77 (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_Singaporean_general_election&oldid=1196693031"