Talk:Presidential Council for Minority Rights/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 17:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Review Planning

I am currently reviewing material in this article. As I am already reviewing another article from the same nominator and it has issues with material, I am going to tag this. If I do not update by May 12th I will remove my review process. This is one of the longest un-reviewed articles.

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	No concerns.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Good as always.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Cannot independently verify material on a majority, but self-checking supports.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Yes.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No concerns here.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	It is OK	Pass
(b) (focused)	Looks good.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes

Result

Seems to be more negative and has a POV fork with the 'Issues' section that is not backed up with specific cases of positive material. Even though they may not have disagreed with any material and they have limited power, to further discount the role puts the council into a category of 'uselessness' in which its potential for abuse is great and its authority on relevant matters are dismissive. It cannot be both.

Don't know

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No edit wars.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All are acceptable	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Only one doesn't have captions, but is part of the infobox. It is the same picture of the Parliament house from a different angle. Seems fine.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Don't know |The neutrality of the matter should be addressed.

Discussion

Most of the Issues section borders on WP:Synth because it takes a negative stance put forth by a reference and adds material to it, some of the prose veers off to that of a lecture rather then encyclopedia.

"While the President may block certain appointments to the Council, he cannot remove a permanent member from his seat. In fact, it does not appear that any person has the power to do so. The door may be open for potential abuse with appointments based on some political agenda rather than merit.[43] The counterpoint is that it is precisely those in power who are best placed to scrutinize bills for illegitimate differentiating measures, because "it is often those with political affiliations who can make the biggest contribution to the discussion; if nothing else, from the folly and error of their past ways".[44]"

This section is negative and while the counterpoint seems positive, still manages to be negative because it makes reference to their past mistakes with 'folly and error of their past ways". That's not exactly a neutral counterpoint. The next two paragraphs are the same as well. Discounting their potential contributions simply because they could possess COI and may be unfit to oppose. Considering not one piece of legislation has been countered, a review of their legislation they've commented on should be seen whether or not it was fair, even if someone has a positive overall stance, surely some evidence must exist of their input imparting some approval or change before the formal decision? Power to abuse is not the same as actual abuse; the difference must be clear. The PCMR as an "Upper Chamber" veers into WP:OR or lack of proper sourcing if the view is otherwise made, with its negativity.

As a whole the negative stance is just too great for me to pass this right now. All over the article a few minor positives are given versus the negatives and it constantly refreshes the argument with arguments like, "By taking up the function of scrutinizing existing and prospective legislation for differentiating measures and inconsistencies with fundamental liberties, the Council may be encroaching on the functions of constitutional interpretation, which is traditionally the function of courts. Even though the Council has the additional advantage of identifying potentially unconstitutional legislation at an early stage, thereby preventing unnecessary litigation in the future, there is doubt as to the ability of the Council to take on such a task." It just needs to be addressed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts:

• Pretty much all the commentary about the PCMR is generally negative, so I'm not sure it will be possible to find anything that will give the article a positive spin. Shouldn't the article reflect what the available literature generally states about the topic?
• I'm not sure what you're driving at when you wrote: "Considering not one piece of legislation has been countered, a review of their legislation they've commented on should be seen whether or not it was fair, even if someone has a positive overall stance, surely some evidence must exist of their input imparting some approval or change before the formal decision? Power to abuse is not the same as actual abuse; the difference must be clear." If you are suggesting that the legislation which the PCMR has examined should be reviewed to see if the PCMR has acted fairly, surely this would be original research. To date, I am not aware that anyone has published such a review. The PCMR's own reports are quite unhelpful – they merely list the names of the statutes examined and conclude that the Council did not find any differentiating measures in them. They do not describe the Council's thought process at all.
• I'm also not clear why you think the "PCMR as an 'Upper Chamber'" section is original research. Every paragraph is fully referenced to one or more reliable third-party sources.

— SMUconlaw (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Even if it is generally negative, limits to the amount of negativity must be present. The article takes aim at the PCMR, even though reliable sources and proper citations are used, their is supposed to be balance. This article doesn't seem to be balanced, it takes repeated shots at everything from being appointed to conflict of interest and discounts their effectiveness or competence at every turn. I disagree on its neutrality because of that. The article should reflect the majority view point. Here's a document from the UN. [1] Page 3 refutes some of the claims made in this article. While it was not me looking very hard, it still goes to stand. Another about the government's response is here and their stance. [2] It is not fair to hold all the negatives and not list official positions when one exists. This is not a reliable source, but it still insists it has done good. [3] The position taken is counter to some of the points raised in the article.

Second point: Its actions and recommendations have been noted in other sources and it appears that their input is valuable and acted upon. I've made note of that above, it seems that they do receive praise and play an important role. The article dismisses the PCMR as more of a joke when evidence exists that states otherwise. If only I could access the archives I'd gladly make a stronger case for that evidence.

Third point: The statements were unattributed to a specific source and again, it wasn't neutral. Even as paraphrasing, the last two paragraphs are of concern. I am not certain of source 87, "Khoo, "Paper III", p. 17." in its backing of the position it takes, is the last sentence the key point or is the entire paragraph the backing of Khoo? Same applies to sources like "Thio Su Mien, "Paper I", p. 8." and "Marshall, "Paper II", p. 12." These appear to be academic works rather then peer reviewed reliable sources that show a level of authority sufficient for the stances they represent. Sadly, they also represent the most potent source of objection. I would need more details (and also future readers) to take their stance with confidence.

Its just too much for me to dismiss at this point, even being unable to gather a large amount of information about the PCMR, it appears that a few questionable resources are being used to make a case against the PCMR, and an article should never take part in a dispute, its not neutral. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the article as it stands "dismisses the PCMR as more of a joke"; it is a serious attempt to summarize the current critique about the Council that have been raised by academics. Why do you dismiss academic writings as not peer-reviewed or reliable? Most legal academic writing is published in peer-reviewed journals, and the Singapore Law Review (in which the articles you referred to above were published) is peer-reviewed and has a distinguished advisory board. Thio Su Mien was a leading constitutional scholar from Singapore (now retired), and David Marshall a distinguished lawyer and once Chief Minister of Singapore. On the other hand, the 2010 Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement, while useful in setting out the Government's position, certainly isn't peer-reviewed. I don't think either the UN document or the entry in Singapore: The Encyclopedia (which I would consider a reliable source) are very helpful. They merely describe what the PCMR does without critically commenting on it, and do not really justify the way in which the PCMR currently works.

Since we seem to be at a bit of an impasse, I suggest that we request for a second opinion on the article. How do we go about doing this? — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I figured out how to request for a second opinion. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Very well, my inability to properly check the majority of the sources are a key point which I have tried to verify independently. This is not my area of expertise, and while I am lenient as the criteria allows for, the negative stance is just overly pushed in my eyes. I'll gladly support a second opinion on this matter. The Singapedia probably would pass for a RS actually. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

After a quick look, I think Smuconlaw is on the right here. Article looks ready for promotion to GA! -- Lord Roem (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The edits made on May 11th help take the stance of which I was pointing out on here, I wanted balance to the negative. Those edits took place AFTER the second opinion was asked for, so just let it be noted my concern about the members and their COI have been addressed as per the PCMR's formal opinion. The article doesn't address how the individual members of the PCMR influence matters beyond their formal post or analyze a single case in which resulting in a change or improvement to legislation outside of a rejection. Also as in The Singapore Legal System edited by Kevin Tan, evidence supporting the PCMR (against some of the issues raised here) state that because of the process in which the PCMR receives the legislation, their ability to act comes as a constitutionally limited check, and a very weak one at that. If the article is going to go into such detail, why not point out the clear and valid fact that the PCMR gets the legislation at the third stage, after parliamentary debates. If it was included in the first and second readings before the end of the parliamentary debate, then the PCMR could have a greater role. This restriction is no where mentioned in the article as being a valid justification on its weakness imposed by the law. Even more important for an 'issue' is that unfavorable legislation can bypass the PCMR entirely by allowing the Prime Minister to have great leeway in deciding if the bill is exempt from the PCMR. It is this combination of limited interaction, limited jurisdiction and limited authority that effectively reduces the PCMR to its weak role. We have two of the three reasons listed here, and the COI issue which I mentioned above has been filled out with an official stance. Perhaps I should go and add the material in, because the important stance raised by Tan is strangely absent in such an article and that's just from a source already listed in the article. Here's the link to the material. [4] Anyways, if there are no more comments about this I'll pass it, I just believe that actual limitations written into the process deserve at least a sentence or two as to why the PCMR acts as such a weak check, but I'm no expert in law. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're saying - some desired depth in some areas - but looking at the article itself, I don't see that as failing any GA criterion. I think we're safe in promoting it. Lord Roem (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

One of my other GA reviewed articles someone said wasn't neutral and I've been trying to be more fair about it. After the COI matter was discussed better I think it works, my concerns have always been verification of the source material and its claims. I'll pass it later tonight. I've spent many hours reviewing the material here and in the article, I just wanted to make sure that these papers are proper, reliable and accurate in their claims. Its not the first law article on Singapore I've done and this one having more information led to additional concerns. All relatively minor. I know other GA reviewers, even following the criteria have made valid points about major and minor viewpoints, it just didn't seem that the opposing viewpoint was given a say. With the COI issue brought up the entire matter was fine in my eyes, because that comes from the government and is in response to the argument, with its absence I began to wonder about other things. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The effort you've taken in reviewing the article is appreciated, but I have to mention that the issues you say are missing from the article are either points on which there are no reliable third-party sources, or are, in fact, already in the article:

• "The article doesn't address how the individual members of the PCMR influence matters beyond their formal post or analyze a single case in which resulting in a change or improvement to legislation outside of a rejection." – at the moment there simply aren't any reliable third-party sources mentioning these points.
• "[W]hy not point out the clear and valid fact that the PCMR gets the legislation at the third stage, after parliamentary debates. ... This restriction is no where mentioned in the article as being a valid justification on its weakness imposed by the law." – The section "Bills" states: "The Speaker of Parliament is required to refer all bills, with some exceptions, to the PCMR for consideration immediately after the third reading of the bill in Parliament and obtain the Council's report on it before the bill may be sent to the President for assent. ... The referral of a bill only after its third reading means that Parliament will not have the opportunity of considering the Council's views on the bill prior to the debate." This is the same point made in the Singapore Legal System book, which does not state that this limitation is "a valid justification" for the weakness of the Council.
• "Even more important for an 'issue' is that unfavorable legislation can bypass the PCMR entirely by allowing the Prime Minister to have great leeway in deciding if the bill is exempt from the PCMR. It is this combination of limited interaction, limited jurisdiction and limited authority that effectively reduces the PCMR to its weak role." – The section "Excluded types of bills" states: "Three types of bills are expressly excluded from the scrutiny of the PCMR: ... 2. Bills that the Prime Minister certifies as affecting 'the defence or security of Singapore, or which relate to the public safety, peace or good order of Singapore'. 3. Bills that the Prime Minister certifies to be so urgent that any delay in enactment would be detrimental to the public welfare. ... [G]rounds upon which bills may be excluded such as 'public safety' and 'peace', have been described as "nebulous" with potentially wide definitions that are open to abuse by the government in power. As regards a bill that has been enacted on a certificate of urgency and assented to by the President, the Speaker is required to send the Act of Parliament to the Council as soon as possible for its report, which is then presented to Parliament. However, the Constitution contains no provisions as to any steps that Parliament is required to take to amending the Act if an adverse report is made."

Thus, I'm not sure why it is thought that these points are "strangely absent" from the article. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

As a non-technical reader, the difference between 'public safety' and 'peace' are entirely different from the fact the mere guise can be evoked to bypass otherwise problematic PCMR action, and said action is entirely weak anyways from the readings. Though as for the matter of the third reading, that seems to me to be a restriction on the matter, I'm not unfamiliar with procedures of that nature, but it does go to show the PCMR has limited ability to affect the legislation are a critical point in its creation, which was in the source. I'm going to pass the article now. My own stances are not as important as someone who actually commands knowledge of the subject first hand, I was only trying to justify my concerns with observations. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Despite our differences of opinion, thanks very much for your attention to detail. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)