Talk:Singapore/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Singapore. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Untitled

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.

Pictures

The picture of Changi airport really sucks. It could be any airport anywhere - nothing really special. Someone should delete it. It's just a stupid picture of another airport. Who cares? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.68 (talk • contribs)

Changed the airport picture, as well as the one of the MRT.--Huaiwei 17:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Lion?

Do we know for sure that there were lions in this area in historic times? When did they disappear? What species or subspecies were they? Where are the nearer wild lions now?

No, there were no lions, which is one of the mysteries of our name.--202.156.6.54 15:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Folklore tells of Sang Nila Utama seeing a lion; however, since there were no lions, it has been rumoured that he saw a tiger and mistook it for a lion.

Pura

Is pura a Malay word, or a pure Sanskrit word? Any experts here? --Sengkang 01:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a Malay word. It is not Sanskrit word--Kingykongy

I beg to differ. It is indeed a Malay word, but Malay has borrowed it from Sanskrit. The article itself refers to bartleby.com, however, really authoritative sources like Turnbull (1996) confirm it. Furthermore, the Malay language article gives (or gave, rather) a number of lexical items of Sanskrit origin. JREL (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

I'm not going to remove this article from the GA nominations list yet, but a couple of points that I think should be addressed:

The lead is huge- see WP:LEAD for guidelines
Lack of inline citations for numbers (In 2003, governmental expenditures on national security and foreign relations totalled S$9,248.9 million, 48% of total expenditures for that year) and statements (Singapore's cuisine is the most general attraction for tourists).
Per WP:MoS, only proper nouns in headings should be capatalized.

Thanks, AndyZ 23:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Singapore Wikipedians are busy at the moment. You may like to do some cleanup, feel free to do so. This is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, so please do improve the article. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Terence's right - I personally would love to get the in-line up and perhaps try FAC again, but time constrains at the moment means I can't do much for now. - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

City

According to the infobox of the article, the capital and the largest city is Singapore. I'd like to know if it's true that the Singaporean government has defined the entirety of itself as one city, and this city as its capital? Was the city charter granted by the ~~Queen~~ King in the 1950s granted to the entirety of the modern state of Singapore? Thanks. — Insta ntnood 21:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC) (modified 20:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

Well, Singapore is a city-state, which basically means the whole country is one city, although we also call the Central Business District "city". The general impression is that Singapore is ONE city, as it has a well-defined central area surrounded by suburbs. -- splot 07:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about impression or the definition of city as in the study of geography, but official and legal designation/recognition. Does the Singaporean government incorporate the entirety of its territory as a city? Or was the royal charter granted by the King in 1951 granted to the entirety of the territory of the modern state of Singapore? If not, then in what way does the city in that sense exist? And how is its capital defined? — Insta ntnood 20:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Since there was a historical distinction between the city and the island before independence, ie. the CBD/Central Area/Downtown Core (as they evolved) would be called "Singapore City", and perhaps Changi was treated as a separate town, but as all the areas expanded, and independence achieved naturally de facto there was no distinction. But I think de jure there is a distinction, but perhaps it was cast out over the past few decades. I don't think a capital is defined in the constitution. Recognition only goes so far as to the nation itself, the planning areas, and the constituency. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

So who received the city charter? Part of the modern state of Singapore, or the entirety of the modern state of Singapore? If it's the former, does it still legally exists? If not, why? If its capital is not defined in the constitution, how and where is it defined? Thanks. — Insta ntnood 18:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't know what you are looking for, Republic of Singapore granting the city charter to the City of Singapore? For fun?! Btw, Singapore is only 40km wide and it has only one goverment; these is no such thing as local municipalities in Singapore, only town councils with very limited autonomy and responsibility. To clarify, there is only one government, one legislative body, one election (still is), one taxation, and one authority or ministry for each department of law enforcement, utility, telecomm, education, land, housing, transport, etc. As far as I can remember, this has always been the case since 1965. What happened before that I don't remember but basically irrelevant; after 1965, a city charter is unnecessary. --Vsion 19:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In that case, if the Singaporean government has not defined the entirety of itself as a city, then there's basically no city in Singapore, and the entirety of Singapore, legally speaking, is not a city, am I right? As far as I know, pre-1965 laws are still valid, unless amended or repealed. If the royal charter in 1951 wasn't repealed or amended, it's still valid, and the place with the charter granted is still a city. Re: " Republic of Singapore granting the city charter to the City of Singapore? For fun?! Btw, Singapore is only 40km wide " - Whether it's 40km wide or 700km² in size is irrelevant. Cities like Taipei or Chicago covers only the centre of the metropolitan area. Westminster and the City of London (the Square Mile) are also cities. Beverly Hills and West Hollywooed are also cities, although they're enclaves within the city of Los Angeles. — Insta ntnood 08:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand why on earth does the Singaporean government want to grant a city charter to itself? Of course the "royal charter of 1951" (or whatever it is) was repealed! At least three times over in fact: declaration of self-government in 1959, declaration of independence through Malaysia in 1963, and the Declaration of Independence in 1965. For a city which is also an independent state, the so called "city charter" is superceded by what is known as the "Constitution". --Vsion 09:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What was "repealed" was Singapore's statuses as a crown colony ("repealed" in 1963) and as a state of Malaysia (in 1965). Was the royal charter, i.e. the city status, granted to the entirety of the then crown colony of Singapore in 1951, or only part of it? If it was granted to part of Singapore, neither declaration of self-government nor declaration of independence would have repealed the city charter. — Insta ntnood 09:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the 1951 document, never read it nor heard of it. After 1965, Singapore is a sovereign state and is free to govern itself in a way as it wishes. As I wrote earlier, there is only one government and the city and the state is identical, there is no need for the city-charter because there is already a Constitution. The govt. has no wish to create a new level of autonomous administrative district. The governemnt, the people, and many foreign observers, have always refer to the state as a city-state, and using this term (as defined in [1]) is correct. Please don't assert your own definition, and create a naming issue out of nothing. --Vsion 21:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

With no legal and/or administrative designation, no incorporation, no charter, in what way is it legally and/or administratively a city? (Though I know it is, geographically, an urbanised area.) — Insta ntnood 21:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You are totally confused by what is an incorporation. Incorporation is to grant a significant amount of autonomy to a district, such that it (a city, etc), can have it own governing council, election, taxation, police force, ultility board, etc. Singapore already has all these. Why does it want to decree an incorporation on itself. Please study what is an incorpration first. --Vsion 21:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There's such thing as unitary authority. Since Singapore does not define any part of itself as city, if it does not define the entirety of itself to be a city, no city exists. — Insta ntnood 21:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by unitary authority? Please explain. Singapore and others have always refer it as a city-state. In the Constitution, of course it use the word "State" instead of "city", but that doesn't mean it is not a city. Please use the common definition of "city-state" [2], not your pov definition; are you confusing it with some chinese translation or something? --Vsion 22:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What to do with Chinese translation? There's an article on Wikipedia about unitary authority. Nobody disputes the fact that Singapore is a city-state, and is, of course, a city, in the sense that it's an urban area. It's not, legally and administratively speaking, a city however. — Insta ntnood 22:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we agree that Singapore is a city-state. Have any other city-states incorporate itself or write a city-charter in addtion to its Consitution? I don't know the answer, but to me it seems unnecessary why any city-state (and Singapore) would do that, hence my objection. Please enlighten. --Vsion 20:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Monaco, for instance, has a Communal Council responsible for the principality's local affairs, besides the National Council. It's true and indisputable that Singapore is geographically an urbanised area, i.e. a city according to some definitions, but administratively and legally speaking, it's not designated a city. — Insta ntnood 14:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Singapore did in the past have a Municipal Council (renamed City Council in 1951) and a Rural Board [3] [4]. They were abolished in 1965 or later [5]. Other relevant information: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Was the City between 1951 and the abolishment of its council the capital of the crown colony, and from 1963 the Malaysian state? Did the Singaporean government define the entirety of the sovereign state as a city and the capital after it abolished the City Council and the Rural Board? — Insta ntnood 16:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Seems like nobody is interested with this part of history of Singapore. Did you know the water trade agreement was signed between the City Council of the City of Singapore and the State of Johore? Did you know the rest of the crown colony, other than the City of Singapore, had a Singapore Rural Board? — Insta ntnood 22:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are making. But the infor. you provide does show that Singapore is administratively run as a city. The role of city council in the past is taken over by the current government. Other level of administration no longer exist. This is the fact today, and describing it as "city-state", is appropriate and sufficient. --Vsion 01:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an actual fact the power of the former city council was taken over by the government. Yet nobody inherited the city charter, and therefore, nothing is carrying on the city status. — Insta ntnood 19:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

comparing Singapore with western countries

- Some information on Singapore: [12], [13][14], [15]

- Weak democracy, dubious elections, weak media freedom, and fascism in the United States: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]

- Corruption in the US political system: [29], [30], [31], [32]

Jack, 10 April 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.131.201 (talk • contribs) (Links centralised here, please do not paste the same links multiple times in different sections of a page Kimchi.sg | talk 23:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC))

Is Singapore considered a First world country?

I have always wondered whether Singapore is considered a First World nation by the international community. Recently, it had been written in the Straits Times that Singapore is NOT considered a First world country but it is a developed nation. Does anyone has any clarification about this? What is the official stand? Surely, this nation is not a third world country and this nation is highly affluent. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 16:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"First world" does not have anything to do with the state of development although it might affect the economy. The terms are now outdated because the Cold War has ended. "First world" were the nations under the sphere of influence of NATO and the United States, "second world" were the nations under the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union, and "third world" nations which had loyalties to neither Soviet Union nor the United States. It is inaccurate at describing economic development, although sometimes they correlate. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Such distinctions are arbitrary. No country is "inherently" classified just as continents are not necessarily endemic to a world (see Myth of Continents)

About adding time and latitude info

The below code is based upon the Tokyo article which allows you to see the coordinates and the current time in singapore. This is useful if people would want to know the current time in singapore. I would suggest adding it to the article but it would be allright if this isn't added in the end.
<span id="coordinates" class="plainlinksneverexpand"> [[Geographic coordinate system|Coordinates]]: {{coor dm|1|17|N|103|51|E|type:city}} Current time in Singapore: {{CurrentTimeIn|UsualDifferenceFromUTCForThisLocation=8|DSTAdjustment=0}} </span>
--fnfd 22:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Archaeology

Archaeology in Singapore wikilink should be integrated into the article or deleted. My opinion anyways... - Tutmosis 23:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone linked it from the history section. Kimchi.sg 10:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Literacy rate

This article puts it at 98%, but Education in Singapore suggests it is 94.6%. We also need a citation for the explanation of the cause of illiteracy. Johnleemk | Talk 18:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

98% is hard to believe. --Vsion 18:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

95%, sourced. - Mailer Diablo 19:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Merging back refs

We've found quite a lot of references in the process, so when we get this done, we should also update the subpages. ;-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive

Not on Singapore per se but related, History of Southeast Asia is currently a nominee for Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please support the nominee by voting for it! __earth ^(Talk) 03:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Haze

Haze is persistent but intermittent problem in Singapore. How should this be best reflected in the article?

Is it a long-term, permanent situation worthy for comment here?--Huaiwei 15:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Long-term? Yes -- it goes back a decade or so. Permanent? No, but then if a country is susceptible to earthquakes you'd mention that, even though they may not occur every day. At the moment, Indonesia seems unable to control the burning that causes the haze. Asean is impotent. So looking forward, it seems to be a medium-term/long-term issue for Singapore and the region.

I think haze is worth noting because the article at the moment makes a bold claim that Singapore controls its pollution within WHO levels. That is, I think, misleading. Singapore's emissions may be within the limits, but the air that Singaporeans breathe can have officially unhealthy levels of pollution in it, because of haze.

Also, there's no mention of Singapore's high levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Per head, Singaporeans are some of the dirtiest people in the world when it comes to CO2 and other emissions related to global warming. Far worse than Americans, for example. (I don't have a link at the moment, but will try to get one soon.)

Biased tag required

The article is biased. It is inappropriate to describe singapore as a democracy.

The above statement is completely untrue and is, ironically, utterly biased itself.

Can you support your statement that Singapore is not a democracy? --Lkc159 08:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think that Singapore is not a democracy? Although in the general elections the People's Action Party wins almost all the parliament seats (because most of the MP candidates stood unchalleged), it is still a democracy (even most of the Singaporeans don't need to go to the polls). Joshua Chiew 13:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"it is still a democracy (even most of the Singaporeans don't need to go to the polls)" Why do I find this statement extremely funny?

Probably because they vote by mail? Voting is compulsory there after all. I can't say whether a forced high voter turnout is any better than the US system of an optional voter turnout. -Amatulic 23:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it is because the PAP stood unchallenged in majority of the electorates. BTW, is voting compulsory? Joshua C hi e w 06:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is compulsory. The penalty for not voting include having one's name strike out of the voters registry, i'm not sure if there is any other penalty. In the Singapore general election, 2006, about 1.1 million people voted (91.9% turnout), but that was only 56% of all adult citizens because the rest were in "walkover" districts. In terms of population, that was about 30%, less than the US 2004 presidential election and the recent UK's GE, which were within the 40-50% range. --Vsion 07:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont see where the humour is stemming from. Walkovers are not undemocratic in itself. In fact, a walkover is not possible in a state without democracy.--Huaiwei 13:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Simple question, simple answer. First, let's look at the definitions of democracy (1) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy. Unless you are able to change the definition of what is meant by democracy, otherwise, please don't waste our time.

How about *censorship*? I'm surprised that no one mentioned it. [33][34]

What does censorship have to do with democracy? I just did a quick scan of Wikipedia's article on democracy, and it doesn't mention it. --Deon 11:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Imagine an extreme hypothetical country in which the government controls the media and censors the news: there's no bad news published about the ruling party and its policies, and no good news about opposition parties. Voters will only read/see/listen to positive reports about the ruling party, and negative reports on the opposition. On election day, do you think voters will be making a fully democratic decision about which party is best if their information has been censored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.143.29 (talk • contribs)

That's a question of "how and why" Singaporeans make such democratic decisions. But still people have to have a democratic system to be able to make democratic decisions in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.229.27 (talk • contribs)

Whatever your grouse about Singapore being not democratic because the media is censored or whatever...next election, get your vote in. Also, think about responsibility also when you think democracy or freedom ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.125.221.28 (talk • contribs)

This is not open for discussion. Let us all be reminded that there are several varieties of democracy, all of which are equally valid. Singapore falls into one of this, and this is obviously democratic. Also, let us be reminded that we are talking about Singapore being a democracy in general, not a specific form of it. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 14:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Singapore is a crippled republic. A representative form of government does not entail being called a democracy, especially when its citizens have little partcipation: otherwise I could call the Holy Roman Empire with its Reichstag a democracy. Obviously democratic? Lee Kuan Yew has chosen to reject more reformative and just democratic values that would properly serve the principle of consent of the governed under the excuse of Asian values. They aren't mutually exclusive. Singapore is a borderline-democratic nation. It is not "obviously democratic". However, if the PAP decided to reject a voter's mandate and declare a military dictatorship, they could be toppled easily - hence the public still has some control of governance, but that is slipping away ... John Riemann Soong 17:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how the public is loosing control of governance, based on that conclusion of yours above. In fact, I see people power on the rise here, and the PAP is trying its best to handle it, with some mistakes made along the way. It is plain obvious in this decade, unless you arent in Singapore to observe it beyond what the local media says.--Huaiwei 23:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It slips away as long as the PAP remains in power, for it confirms their immunity to public feedback. I myself am optimistic, but we shall win at 2011 or 2016, otherwise there shan't be a hope. John Riemann Soong 02:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

They have been in power for a much longer period. Why should the next few years be so critical, and why is 2016 a watershed year? In fact, I am of the opinion that you do not even need to remove them from power to demonstrate the powers of democracy here. Why should a ruling party of a non-democracy need to work so damn hard just to remain in power, if it is indeed a non-democratic state?--Huaiwei 08:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::"Why should a ruling party of a non-democracy need to work so damn hard just to remain in power, if it is indeed a non-democratic state? -- Read your Confucius: even unelected emperors must maintain the mandate of heaven or else their subjects are entitled to remove them. It's simple pragmatism. If you push the electorate too far, they might do a "People Power" on you.

They aren't working so hard at all: they simply push criticism aside, and maybe arrest a critical person or two when the occasional rebel becomes a bit too visible. If Singapore is a democracy, it is a totalitarian democracy. The people don't have "control": their outrage is merely a barrier to the power-mongerers. John Riemann Soong 00:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Capital punishment arguments

The statement here needs clarification or citation:

However, defenders argue that Singapore is one of the few countries that does occasionally (most recently in 2003) reveal its execution rate. Some countries which may have higher execution rates are overlooked by Amnesty because they keep their execution records a state secret.

I believe most countries have open courts system and thus the execution rates can always be computed. Singapore's per capita rate fluctuates significantly, partly because the number of executions in Singapore is relatively small and partly because of the drug trades. In the period surveyed by AI, its per capita rate is highest among the countries examined. In recent years, Saudi's rate is much higher. Nonetheless, the main argument used by "defenders" is not about the ranking, but that there is no universal consensus on the issue of capital punishment and that the country has the sovereign right to determine the punishment for serious crimes. --Vsion 14:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to state the Singapore government's "response" in the Wiki article as you have done? Their response is essentially the same response that all death penalty governments employ (the issue of sovereignty). I think the AI statistic should be presented at face value, without the blithe commentary. The article should present facts, not opinions of the Singapore government. -- Xaqua 03:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are refering to this edit [35], I was just replacing a misleading and unsourced sentence with one that is accurate and referenced. --Vsion 03:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Education hub

As you know, Singapore is one of the education hubs in Asia important? Like Hong Kong and Japan. If this is imporatant, we may include this.

- Education hub in Asia - Government's tuition grant reduces school fees

It's not that much about Singapore's achievement. All the Education section asks for is a "brief" explanation for the surprisingly high number of foreign students studying there. The explanation should answer some questions, points that may interest foreigners. Afterall, Wiki is an international website. Also, I'm sure you Singaporeans would be interested to find out why.

http://www.education-hub.com/about-singapore/study-in-singapore.php

-Clockword

A few schools in Singapore, such as Raffles Institution, hold exchange programmes. That is to say, students from schools in other countries will send some of thier students over to Raffles Institution, and vice versa. I'm not sure if this answers the question, but it probably does. --Lkc159 08:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Courts

These statements are also strange:

Several former and present members of the opposition, including Francis Seow, J.B. Jeyaretnam and Chee Soon Juan perceive the Singaporean courts as favourable towards the government and the PAP due to a lack of separation of powers. [12] There are however three cases in which opposition leader Chiam See Tong sued PAP members for defamation and sucessfully obtained an out-of-court settlement. [13]

Regarding these two statements, the first states that the opposition perceives courts as biased. The second then attempts to rebut the first by giving a counterexample, but a small out-of-court settlement by weak PAP underlings is a bad counterexample. We should clarify this by adding that no court case has actually ever been ruled (by a judge) in favor of any opposition member. This is much more significant to readers than the minor example of Chiam See Tong's out-of-court settlement and more accurately reflects the true state of the courts in Singapore. -- Xaqua 03:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Similary, my edit here [36] was to clarify and add source, and it stopped an edit war. I'm not sure about the accuracy of the statement that "no court case has actually ever been ruled (by a judge) in favor of any opposition member". --Vsion 03:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is aware of a single court case where an opposition member won a judgement (in the Singapore courts) against a PAP member, please let us know. I couldn't find any. If there hasn't been a single case in the entire decades-long history of modern Singapore, then this is significant and should be added to qualify the statement about Chiam's "settlement". As it stands, the article seems to take a biased position that, though the opposition PERCEIVES the courts to be biased, this is obviously not the case because once, a long time ago, Chiam got a tiny out-of-court settlement from some PAP juniors. While we may disagree on the actual amount of bias in Singapore courts, we should be careful about the way these statements are worded. Xaqua 07:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I replace "There are however ..." with "Nonetheless, there are ...". This was my fault, I keep forgeting the proper use of "however". --Vsion 01:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

After waiting for a week, no one has offered any example of a PAP member losing a defamation case in court. This is because there aren't any. Rather than merely state that the opposition perceives the Singapore courts to be biased, including the statement that no PAP member has ever lost in court provides more useful, factual information to readers, rather than just the OPINION of the opposition. This statement is further clarified by the addition of Chiam's out-of-court settlement against a few PAP juniors. Xaqua 04:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

government-invented demographics

The classification of the four "races" is not a neutral classification, nor does it have any scientific backing. For example, the term "Chinese" is highly ambiguous, because it's not specifically "Han Chinese"...there are many ethnicities within India, and thus immigrants from it. Conflating them is merely a propaganda scheme. Neither is "Eurasian" a race. Government policy is run as such, but Wikipedia should not say that these classifications are how Singaporean demographics ae really set up. In fact this classification system has many critics. John Riemann Soong 10:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The Singapore government categorises "Eurasian" as a race? --- Hong Qi Gong 15:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

In more recent times, it tends to be CMIO - Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others in place of the word "Eurasian".--Huaiwei 17:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Does "Others" just define Eurasians or does it include everybody that is not Chinese, Malay, or Indian? --- Hong Qi Gong 20:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The later.--Huaiwei 08:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Pardon ... which sentence(s) in the article is this issue about? --Vsion 22:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Chinese" in this sense refers to people of the Chinese race in general, and not targetted at specific chinese groups. Similarly, Indians does not refer to people from India, but to people fron the Indian race. Oh, and "Others" refer to people who are not part of the Chinese, Indian or Malay races. And I don't get your point of this being a propaganda scheme. Also, like Vsion, I have no idea which sentence is taking about, unless it was removed some time ago? --Lkc159 08:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Indians do not constitute a "race". That is merely conflating entire groups of peoples into one, based on bigoted and oversimplified (if not arrogant, conceited and utterly racist) concepts. India has many ethnic groups, languages, heck, entire language families that are distinct. Consider the fact that Indian languages can be divided into two categories: the Indo-Aryan languages of the north (Sanskrit, Hindi, etc.) and the Dravidian languages of the south. India has at least two major ethnic families, though this itself is an oversimplification. There is certainly no "Indian race". Consider for example, that Hindi ultimately traces its roots to Proto-Indo-European, which is the same common ancestor as Latin, Greek, and Proto-Germanic, (the Latin branches and the Proto-Germanic branches will merge into the modern English language via Anglo-Norman (an oil language) and Anglo-Saxon respectively). The Dravidian languages, on the other hand, trace their roots to the Dravidians - the dominant people of India before the Aryan immigration (some say invasion). Because of this, Hindi - the most-spoken language in India - is a distant cousin of French and English. The Tamil language has no genetic relationships with any of the Indo-Aryan languages, never mind the European languages. Consider the Romani language, the language of the gypsies, which traces roots back to India, but has no ancestral relationship with the Tamil language.

In no way can you say "Indians" constitute a single "race" of any sort! It is unscientific - it is only based on bigotry by a Chinese-dominated government who try to deceive themselves that the country is racially harmonious, based on "major ethnic groups". Singapore has far more than 4 ethnic groups. It is like calling a Tibetan a "Chinese". The questioned sentence in particular is "Indian Singaporeans are the third largest ethnic group at 7.9%, consisting of several groups". But I'm afraid changing it is only changing the surface of the problem - the entire article structure, every article which mentions the different peoples of Singapore according to a government scheme this way has to be changed. The government classifies its population according to four ethnic classifications, but the scientific classification is far more neutral and diverse. Just because it's the way the government does it doesn't mean it's a neutral and an acceptable way of classifying people, especially if it's based on racial ignorance. You can't say "an ethnic group further consisting of several groups". It would be sort of saying "the Asian ethnic group, consisting of several ethnic groups, such as the Chinese, Japanese and the Vietnamese" ... despite that they are *separate* ethnic groups. Now, modern India has a lot of mixing ever since the two major groups merged to form one macroculture thousands of years ago (though a lot of mixing is sort of discouraged thanks to the caste system), but still you can't brand them as a "race".

Because of this kind of classification, the government has chosen a single language - Tamil - to represent the "Indian race", despite that Singaporeans with Indian roots, whether ethnic, ancestral, nationality-based or otherwise, are a diverse group of people, with many languages. This has led to the racist malignment of the Indian minority groups - those who speak Punjabi, Hindi, Malayam, etc. John Riemann Soong 18:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The "others" classification still is pretty racist, because it does not recognise the diversity of the individual, especially for those part of the minority groups. What about the Caucasian who is born to Singaporean-citizen parents, and identifies himself or herself in every way Singaporean, but because of the bigotry of both people and government, is treated like an "ang-mo" foreigner, hmm? I've read many such sad cases, and expressions from these people (who are of a significant number) - but fail to be recognised by a racist Singaporean society. There are citizens from South America, etc. but they are treated like outsiders. Why? Because of the entire C/M/I/O scheme, which is racist in its very nature. John Riemann Soong 18:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

to be pendantic, "Han" chinese also constitutes at least 7 seperate ethnic groups and language families but due to a long historical association chooses to call this heterogenious group "one" enthnic group. So you can say there are many ethnic groups, however there seems to be 4 general groups. Chinese originating, India orginanating, other, and native groups.

Then these are government generalisations, not objective demographics. John Riemann Soong 17:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So would you like to do genetic testing on everyone? Have everyone classify themselves based on a set of 150 genes maybe? Even if Dravidians and Indo-Aryans are two distinct gene pools, they both share the same general culture. And it is not as if Dravidans are "pure" bloods or non-Caucasian. But I agree the CMIO scheme needs to be expanded beyond just 4 categories. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.171.76.140 (talk • contribs) .

That's not what I was suggesting. We should have a more scientific description of Singapore's ethnic make up (and changing the title of the subpages accordingly), because an anthropologist would in fact, analyse Singapore's population differently. We don't need gene testing: we just allow people to have the oppurtunity to declare their race (though this is not within the scope of Wikipedia). We label a bunch of people "Eurasian" and "Caucasian" (consisting a large minority of our population) when they could come from very separate genetic backgrounds that say, only has a common root of tracing its roots to the homelands of the Proto-Indo-Europeans (ie. Russians when compared to Italians when compared to Germans and Anglo-Saxons. *but*, we then don't at all include many Indians as Eurasian, despite the fact that they have literally mixed Asian and Indo-Aryan/Indo-European blood.

It's sheer racism and bigotry on the part of ourselves, our inferiority complex and on the part of the government. It's like the hypocrisy of the United States Supreme Court (see Takao Ozawa v. United States, United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind: Takao Ozawa cannot naturalise because he is not "Caucasian" and not intended by the US founding fathers to ever naturalise, though having a white skin colour; but Singh despite being "Caucasian" doesn't have a white skin colour and therefore is barred from naturalising too).

I'm not saying that India doesn't have a shared culture, unified by intermarriage over the centuries, but if you even look, many people in Southern India are in a disfavourable position, because their mother tongue tend to be Dravidian in nature whereas the dominant languages - English and Hindi - are Indo-European. In the South, the Dravidian languages don't have things like grammatical gender, but Hindi is reminiscent of the Romance languages and many Indo-European languages: it still has genders for inanimate objects, ie. just like in French where the car is feminine and the public bus is masculine and so forth. Luckily for them, English dropped grammatical gender and heavy declension some centuries back, but still, the people in the South have to master three languages while those in the North only have to master two.

Even India recognises the sheer diversity of its own people, and its many ethnic groups. I mean, when you still have the country divided into two major language-groups corresponding to mutually separate geographic areas, that's a sign. John Riemann Soong 22:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Singapore courtesy ranking

I remember reading in a newspaper about Singapore ranking poorly in a courtesy survey. Could someone help me find a reference? They could then put it in the article, or let me insert it myself. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have it; but please add such rankings in International rankings of Singapore instead of here, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries and FAC precedences. Placing such rankings in Country X's article generates lots of unnecessary discussion over the accuracy and appropriateness of the ranking criteria and the agenda of ranking agencies. The table of ranking currently in the article should probably be moved to International rankings of Singapore as well. --Vsion 21:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw the table of rankings, and that's why I thought of adding the results there. If I'm not wrong, the survey was conducted by Reader's Digest. Besides, I'm not sure if we want to tell the whole world how bad-mannered we Singaporeans are. (But in the interests of NPOV, we must) --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is informative and accurate, then the survey result should be of interest (and I'm a rank-cruft myself). However the length of Singapore article already exceeds the guideline, so we try not to clutter too much here. The article International rankings of Singapore is a more suitable place for these international ranking trivia, and it was in fact created from Singapore following a peer review suggestion. --Vsion 05:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Singapore ranks 30 out of 35."No thank you; That's what you get for opening doors for people here. LifeStyle does its own manners test after a Reader's Digest courtesy poll ranks Singapore 30 out of 35", Straits Times article, June 25, 2006 Sunday by Mak Mun San. Cmyk 18:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Another reader's digest ranking done in 1997 ranks us first in honesty (among 14 Asian cities). "S'pore tops regional honesty test", Straits Times article, March 24, 1997 by Wang Hui Ling Cmyk 18:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Government kind

How can Singaporean Government be considered a parliamentary republic when we cannot vote for our prime minister? Ottokarf

What, then, is a "parliamentary republic"?--Huaiwei 17:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

A republic means that the people can vote for their prime minister, does it not? The president of Singapore is only a figure head. The position of Prime Minister is not for the people of Singapore to decide. In fact, Lee Kuan Yew left the post of Prime Minister to his son. How can this be considered a republic is one canot vote for their leader? If you want to speak up against the government, you have to have a permit to do so, issued by the government, or else you will be prosecuted for what you say that diasgrees with the government. Recently, the head of the opposition party in Singapore was tried at court for speaking against the government in public without a valid speaking license. How can we say this is a republic?

--Ottokarf

A republic elects representatives, not necessarily the chief of the representatives, ie. just like Americans don't choose who the Speaker of the House is. Now, an executive leader like a prime minister doesn't need to be elected directly for this qualification. I can agree that it is a farce, but de jure it is still a republic. In fact de facto it can be still be considered a republic, just with lots of flaws. If you want to demonstrate publicly, a permit is required. If one wishes to criticise the government, generally one is free to do so (it proliferates) although lawsuits are often used against prominent opposition leaders. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I Disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.71.24.66 (talk • contribs)

In countries practising the Westminster System of government (eg UK, Canada, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, etc.), the people do not elect the prime minister directly. The leader of the majority party in the parliment becomes the prime minister. However the prime minister is subjected to be appointed by the monarch or president. Joshua Chiew 14:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Grammar and Standard of English

I have noticed that the grammar and english usage on this Singapore page is becoming ever more and more woeful. Wikipedians, please keep a look out for another any of information, and correct the grammar as required. Problems I've realised include: Tenses, overly long sentences, awkward sentence structure, lack of proper inflections etc. -le petit vagabond 05:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Where my good ami? John Riemann Soong 00:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh I agree. It reads like an essay by 15-year-old who's bought a thesaurus and is trying to impress a teacher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.143.29 (talk) 15:03 02-10-2006

Please account for your comments there please. From what I can see, it reads fine to me. I'll run through it carefully after my tests. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 14:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, while I can't put my finger on anything specific, while reading this article I got the distinct impression it was written by Singlish-speaking people trying to write in standard English. The grammar mistakes have been mostly corrected in the past few months, however. -Amatulic 17:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

O RLY? I just find that insulting. Non-specifity = weasel words - hence, your comments have no backing. John Riemann Soong 01:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's nonspecific with no backing — that's what personal impressions are! The impression I described above happens to be what I felt a couple months ago when I first read this article. Sorry if you're insulted by that, but the simple fact remains that this was my impression. The article has improved since then. I've made minor corrections myself. -Amatulic 01:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Impressions arent formed based on nothing. Kindly point out specific instances to support your view above, failing which I do not see how your view is contributing to this article in any way.--Huaiwei 11:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the point? As the article stands NOW, the instances that seemed to have the flavor of Singlish have been fixed; one of them by me. -Amatulic 15:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If you see no point, why mention in the first place? And since you have fixed at least one such instance, mind showing the relevant diffs? I do not see how difficult this can be.--Huaiwei 22:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a bad sentence. It's 48 words long, pompous, and the key point is at the end:

As a result of efforts to control motorised traffic, the maintenance of natural greenery, strict regulations on industrial locations and emissions, and other pro-environmental initiatives by the government and the private sector, Singapore has been able to control its pollution levels to well within World Health Organization standards.

Thus it reads like a Latin text. How is it like Singlish? Dickens wrote run-on all the time. John Riemann Soong 10:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Dickens wrote fiction on paper in the 19th century. Wikipedia is a 21st century encyclopaedia on screen. Different media, different times require different styles. Also, this bit of Wikipedia is in English, not latin.

Nobody claimed that sentence reads like Singlish (not to me anyway, I associate Singlish with a more abbreviated grammatical format). This section is, after all, titled "Grammar and Standard of English." The sentence above, while grammatically correct, is written in an archaic and rather clumsy style that doesn't fit well with the rest of the article. Suggested alternative: Singapore has controlled its pollution levels to well within World Health Organization standards as a result of initiatives to control motorised traffic, maintain natural greenery, strictly regulate industrial locations and emissions, and other pro-environmental activities.

Another example of sentence structure that needs improvement can be found in the introduction: "The site of several ancient port cities and a possession of several empires in its history, Singapore was a Malay fishing village when it was colonised by the United Kingdom in the 19th century." The clauses joined together in that sentence appear to bear no relation to one another. Suggested alternative: Singapore has been the site of several ancient port cities and a possession of several empires in its history. It was a fishing village when it was colonised by the United Kingdom in the 19th century. -Amatulic 15:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

architecture section

Regarding this sentence in the article:

Due to the lack of available space, few historical buildings remain in the urban areas of Singapore. However, Singapore has become a centre for modern architecture as older buildings are cleared away to make space for newer, larger buildings.

I'm not sure about the accuracy of the above sentence, there are many historic buildings (temples, colonial office buildings, etc) being preserved. Even the chinatown's shophouses are preserved, although they were practically torn down (for safety reasons) and rebuilt. Any comment on this? Also, I suggest merging this section to Architecture of Singapore. --Vsion 04:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Raffles Institution, a historic building, was torn down to make way for Raffles City, a undistinguished building.

I concur with Vision, and totally disagree with the comment above. Singapore is one of the few highly developed Asian cities which managed to keep such a large collection of heritage buildings within its city centre. In fact, Singapore cant exactly be called a "centre for modern architecture"....it is more reknown for being a centre of rejuvenation for giving old buildings a new lease of life with its highly acclaimed restoration projects.--Huaiwei 10:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarke Quay is embarrassing, not highly acclaimed.

As a Singaporean, I find it weird I haven't heard of some of the terms here before, eg. Downtown Core. Also, this article is far too long. 219.75.19.164 07:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Downtown Core is the URA term. John Riemann Soong 00:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

International Rankings

I have moved the following table to here because it does not add any reference value to the page. With all the external links, it looks like a spam in disguise. In addition, the contributor has been vandalizing Hong Kong. --Voidvector 12:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Table of Singapore International Rankings
Date	Context	Organization	Ranking	Note
2001	World's Best Airports	Skytrax	3/155 countries	Ranked 3rd out of 155 countries
2002	World's Best Airports	Skytrax	2/155 countries	Ranked 2nd out of 155 countries
2003	World's Best Airports	Skytrax	2/155 countries	Ranked 2nd out of 155 countries
2004	World's Best Airports	Skytrax	2/155 countries	Ranked 2nd out of 155 countries
2004	Third annual worldwide press freedom index	Reporters without borders	140/167 Countries	Ranked 140th out of 167 countries
2005	World's Best Airports	Skytrax	2/155 countries	Ranked 2nd out of 155 countries
2006	Corruption Perceptions Index	Transparency International	5/159 Countries	Ranked 5th out of 159 countries
2006	Index of Economic Freedom	Heritage Foundation/The Wall Street Journal: 2006	2/157 Countries	Ranked 2nd out of 157 Countries for a few years in a row, just behind Hong Kong
2006	Worldwide quality-of-life index	The Economist	11/111 Countries	Ranked 11th out of 111 countries (Best quality of life in Asia)
2006	World Competitiveness Yearbook 2006	IMD International	4/61 Economies	Ranked 4th out of 61 economies (countries and regions)
2006	World City's Skyline/Skyscrapers	Emporis Data Committee (EDC)	5/100 Major cities	Ranked #5 out of all the major cities in the World. This listing ranks cities by the visual impact of their skylines.
2006	Global Competitiveness Report - Growth Competitiveness Index Ranking	World Economic Forum	28/117 Countries	Ranked 28th out of 117 countries
2006	World's Best Airports	Skytrax	1/155 countries	Ranked 1st out of 155 countries

I cant find any sources for this, but it does seem to be rather legitimate. I am Singaporean, and can verify that Singapore was ranked 140th out of 167 countries for press freedom, and can also verify that Singapore has ranked highly (Top 3) in the running for a particular airport award for the past 5/6 years. Unfortunately, i'm not very sure if it was by Skytrax. --Lkc159 07:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is by Skytrax. The same one that ranks Singapore Airlines as one of the top airlines, if you would recall. So will we be adding this back to the main article? Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 14:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I propose that this section be move back to the main Singapore Wikipedia entry. Vision3001 15:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

In any case, one more new entry from Singapore Straits Times, 19 Oct 2006, titled "S'pore ranked world's most globalised country again" by Erica Tay (ericatay@sph.com.sg). "SINGAPORE has once again been rated the world's most globalised country, according to a closely watched annual study.

The Globalisation Index, compiled by management consultancy AT Kearney and Foreign Policy magazine, showed that nowhere in the world do foreign trade and investment flow more freely than in the Republic. " Vision3001 15:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

we need the disambig

There are a few other things named Singapore ... some towns in the United States, actually are named such (it seems that a lot of US towns like to take their names after other famous countries and cities, calling themselves St. Petersburg, Lebanon, Paris, etc.) ... John Riemann Soong 18:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You've gotta be kidding me... No wonder people think we're in Winconsin... Anyway, the situation where we have is a main article with several related but more minor articles sharing the same name. Hence, the practice is to retain the main article, while adding an italicised header with a link to the disambiguation page. Not make the Singapore page a disambiguation page in itself. An example of this is the page Medicine. Hence, go ahead, create a disambiguation page at Singapore (disambiguation), but the Singapore main article will not be made a redirect to that disambiguation page, but will remain the same and have a link to it. That's all. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 14:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

architecture section

Do we really need a separate section for architecture? It should go under culture, and the culture part should be shortened. John Riemann Soong 18:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Economy

Generally the treatment of Singapore's economic success is uncritical. Would it be worth considering the criticisms of Andy Xie, who resigned as Morgan Stanley's chief economist in Asia on October 5, 2006, following an email in which he characterised Singapore as an economic failure that was dependent on illicit money from Indonesia and China?

Sources please? Wikipedia is not a virtual email archiving service.--Huaiwei 12:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And an explanation in his email of how he arrived at that too. You can't just quote him like that. Not that I know what the email is about... Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 14:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The email can be found easily with google, just search for "andy xie email" and you'll find loads of links.

Bloomberg article on the email

full text of email

-Amatulic 20:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The article also needs to cover some of the analysis made by Alwyn Young and Paul Krugman.

Some suggestions

The leading part is too big. At least 1 paragraph should be removed/merged down. For example, the fact that people live in housing estates is mentioned in Demography section and can be removed from first part. But it is only a suggestion.
The naming states that it is from Sanskrit's singh pur. In Sanskrit it literally means lion city. The article however goes on to say it means lion-city in Tamil which is totally out of context. (Actually, The name part can be forked into 'Etymology' or some other section, just before History. (My idea comes from India.)
Er, it says, Singapuram - which seems to be just another form, and not the root. (Although I am surprised, since Tamil is Dravidian and Sanskrit is Indo-European). John Riemann Soong 01:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Last picture is black and white. Is it too old?-- Anupamsr|talk |contribs 17:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The last picture is actually a contemporary picture taken in B&W.--Huaiwei 13:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Photos

I would like to propose these pictures of the Merlion and Bay/Singapore Flier which many people like --Jlascar 17:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

excessive fotos

don't you think this topic putting too many photos? plus what you put are mainly unrelated photos. Please no more hard SELL70.52.74.204 00:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

to the user Rifleman 82, would you please explain to me why do you like to revert these photos that are not related to the topic of economy? thank you very much! 70.55.135.115 01:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

To the IP address(es), care to explain "why" those photos are 'not' related to the economy? Perhaps if you have bothered to give your reasonings those reverts need not have happened. Nic tan33 01:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that these photos are not related to the topic of economy. These photos I removed are basically good for the topic of tourism of Singapore. 70.55.135.115 02:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Is tourism unrelated to the economy?--Huaiwei 13:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Due to edit warring, I've protected the page. Folks, please discuss the reasons for photos or removing them. (And, 70.55.135.xxx, your explanation above is not good enough. Please make a good faith effort to discuss.) --Nlu (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello? thanks for giving me to explain. The photos I rm is around 300X. It is quite big and I resized the photos. I wrote down on edit summary and discussion board. I asked the admin. Rifleman 82. However, as you see, he didn't answer me anything above (even from his talk page). He didn't give me any warning and simply send the request for block, I don't think it is fair and accurate. For me I don't object any admin block me, but I can't accept someone put false accusation on my part. Thank you for your attention! 70.55.135.115 07:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

70.55.135.115 is a known trouble-maker in Singapore passport [37], and his "improvements" to this article appear to be nothing more than childish reflex when his "downplaying of Singaporean hardsell" was twarted. Hardly surprising, therefore, that he couldnt give a better reason for removing some perfectly normal pictures here.--Huaiwei 15:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that not all pics need to be 300 pixels wide. The pictures themselves, however, are neither too many nor too few. They are just right, and appropriate for each section. -Amatulic 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe it would be fair to say that there is consensus for the article as it is, and the anon IP's changes are just flying against that, and should stop (even if necessary, by block for disruption). As far as I can see, no consensus to resize. IMO it's perfectly fine. – Ch acor 11:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

what do you mean by consensus? did you ask them one by one and record them one by one? I told you, I fear no block, go ahead and block me. 70.52.72.7 13:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Consensus if you are genuinely interested to know just how concensus-building in wikipedia comes about. You need not interrogate any member on matters as basic as this. It would be most helpful if the initiative which drove you to remove pictures could be somehow directed towards gaining familiarity with how this place operates.--Huaiwei 15:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why move it?

Why has the page been moved from Singapore to Singapore (country)? It is the most important article named Singapore and I see no reason why this should be done (it causes redirects) --TheTall One 16:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. Ter e nc e Ong 16:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong agree, please discuss such radical moves on requested moves and/or article talkpage. - SpLo T _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 17:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

it is noted that the user who initiated the move is a relative newbie. Some form of guidance may be needed here.--Huaiwei 17:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a clueless newbie, needs some help along the way. Who wants to guide this newbie? Ter e nc e Ong 17:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In the United States, there are some towns named "Singapore"; I can't remember which exactly, but US towns have an apparent tradition of copying the names of international places. (e.g. Lebanon, Maine.) John Riemann Soong 00:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Then we should use a disambig page with Singapore retaining the main article, as per convention with Lebanon (Lebanon (disambiguation)). – Ch acor 08:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

government-linked

"Government-linked corporation" is a propaganda term for state-owned institutions. I have not seen it in common parlance except among state documents and overzealous Straits Times reports. John Riemann Soong 10:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I already pointed it out to the user in question that it was POV, and he seems to have accepted our NPOV policy, per his reply to my talk page. – Ch acor 10:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether it is NPOV is beside the point. This is the term used in Singapore to describe them. GLC should be used; if necessary explanatory notes can be used in parantheses or footnotes. --Rifleman 82 10:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(To John) Did the propaganda office write this article: Government Linked Companies? I have seen the terms used by non-state publications and outside the Singapore context. "State-owned institutions" are different entities. "Government-linked companies" is more commonly used than "Government-controlled companies", probably because it is more precise. I suggest the change to "government-linked corporation".--Vsion 15:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Having to call them GLCs is like having to refer to North Korea as the DPRK all the time, despite the fact that we know the "democratic" qualifier (in our case, the "government-linked" euphemism) is generally just to honey-up the term. GLCs, among other things, are entities with significant stake (generally a majority) invested into them by the state corporation Temasek Holdings, which puts them under the umbrella of state industry. Let us not pander to government terms just because that's what the government wishes us to call them, or because it's stated in our textbooks, which are far from neutral. The last time I remembered, we didn't refer to the Republic of China as Chinese Taipei just because Beijing's textbooks said so. We have an article on Chinese Taipei, to explain its use, but that's another thing entirely. John Riemann Soong 12:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

On that PRK commentary, it really depends on where you are coming from. It has been argued, that Communism is also a form of democracy. Its only the liberal democracies, which happen to be the most popularised form of democracy (and which many assume, quite erronously, to be "true democracy") thanks to western democracies, who paint communism as anti-democratic.--Huaiwei 00:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh? I think most of the world communists have rejected Juche as one of their own as well as National Bolshevism. There would be a difference between a "Democratic Commune of Paris" (if it existed today) and the DRPK. John Riemann Soong 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

(To John) Government Linked Companies is a well-established term with fairly precise meaning and commonly used throughout the world, it even has a wikipedia article to explain it and the article doesn't say it is an euphemism. Where did you get the idea that it is a euphemism? I'm quite surprised you are confusing it with "state industry". Privatisation of services has been the hallmark of the PAP government for over 30 years. I guess the school textbooks forget to explain the differences. --Vsion 07:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Government-linked companies are government-owned companies. All companies under the hierarchy of Temasek Holdings are effectively government-controlled companes what. That'd be like calling the Straits Times not a state-run newspaper. There are distinctions - for example the editorial staff at Today - though under SPH - are considerably more lenient than the Straits Times and more disjunct from the establishment. (Bhavani actually had to write to Today in order to get mr brown fired, for example). But they are still all state industries. John Riemann Soong 16:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That is outright inaccurate. "linked", "owned" and "controlled" are not synonyms, and each can exist without the other. If you consider all companies "under the hierarchy of Temasek Holdings" as "government-controlled companes", then I suppose the Bank of China, Standard Chartered Bank, Shin Corporation, Telekom Malaysia, etc, are all "Singapore Govenment-owned" companies? And yes, I will not call the Straits Times a "state-run newspaper".--Huaiwei 16:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a state-run newspaper? The ST is as about independent from the government as the Pravda was. Anyhow, my trouble is with calling companies in which the SG government owns the majority of the stock as simply "government-linked" when they play a dominant role in the economy. The companies in which the SG government just owns a small stake don't actually "dominate the economy", so I don't mind the term "GLC" for them. John Riemann Soong 23:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

When a company dominates an industrial sector or market, it is call a monopoly. The monopolising company can be a state-company, government-linked, public, or private. --Vsion 14:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Since Creative Technology happens to dominate the soundcard business, and Osim International dominates the message chair sector, are we supposed to call them GLCs next?--Huaiwei 15:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. The significant companies that *are* controlled by the government, dominate the economy, that is most of the so-called GLCs in which the government have more than a 50% stake in them are really state industries. Besides Creative Technology doesn't really "dominate" the soundcard business, nor OSIM, not in the authoritative way that the SPH does over the others (through government regulation). John Riemann Soong 11:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find any reference that suggest that the term "GLC" is an euphemism by the Government. Please provide such a reference before inserting it in the article. As mentioned above, the phrase is widely used, in an objective manner, outside the Singapore content, as easily verified by google search [38]. --Vsion 05:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Many of these don't refer to GLCs, just pages about government links. And besides, where they did use it, I'm sure Malaysia is a shining example of demoracy here. John Riemann Soong 09:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

A change I made earlier stating Singapore is the fourth most densely populated country in the world is reverted, yet in the article Demographics of Singapore, the first sentence wrote "Singapore's demographics describe a population of 4.48 million, as estimated by the last census in 2005 and is the fourth most densely populated country in the world." So is it the second or the fourth? Mr.Clown 15:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Second, according to List of countries by population density --Vsion 16:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But in List of countries, Hong Kong and Macao are included and in most international rankings, they are treated as individual countries, but i know their special status and relation with China. --Mr.Clown 02:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And there must be a reason why that list states "countries and regions", and that Hong Kong and Macau were indicated in italics.--Huaiwei 13:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are there scare quotes here?

Later, they became home to many Japanese generals after the "fall of Singapore" during World War II.

See what style guide has to say on the subject. patsw 22:28, 10 December 2006 (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.