Talk:2005 Singaporean presidential election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Singapore Mid‑importance

	Singapore portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Untitled

off topic: when is the next SG general election? -Hmib 17:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Due by 2007? :D--Huaiwei 06:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

anon: I hope my research on the issue will confirm that there is a debate on about the walkover of the 2005 president election.

As sort of expected, the angst shown towards the presidential electorial system has reached wikipedia. A recent addition of text by User:202.156.2.58 in Sellapan Ramanathan's article, which I then moved here, reads more like the stuff in a blog or a political website than an encyclopedic text. It is noteworthy, but not NPOV.--Huaiwei 06:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there alot of debates on the streets? I wouldn't know because of being overseas. Singaporeans were keen to go the the poll, huh? Too bad, it doesn't work out, :D. --Vsion 07:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the last two paragraphs of the addition by User:202.156.2.58, mainly because they seem not directly relevant to this election. If someone could revise or expand on them, then please reinstate. --Vsion 08:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vsion, I'm the guy who put up the edited article. You say you wouldn't know becaues you are overseas if there is debate on the strets. The poignant truth is that you wouldn't know if you were in Singapore watching the TV or reading the newspapers either. And you thus would assume that there was no debate. I agree that wikipedia is no place to air political views, it is a valuable service that could suffer from lack of impartiality. But singaporeans have to be able to read somewhere that they are entitled to a choice.

I think you have misunderstood, I was asking Huaiwei a sincere question. --Vsion 08:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am right here in Singapore, and no, the rumours of a mass protest in Kallang didnt quite materialise, did it? I am fully aware of the general sense of unhappiness amongst locals, but this can indeed by presented in an NPOV manner. There was an ST article recently which seems like a good basis for comparison, although we do need to adopt an even more nuetral and professional tone here. Wikipedia can be a source for political information, and it can discuss views of the populance. That said, it cannot be abused to read like a one-sided personal writeup either. Singaporeans are entitled to a choice, yes, but that does not amount to the abuse of various avenues of expression around the world.--Huaiwei 08:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[me again] Of course Wikipedia can't be abused :) I agree! I rely on it! but... saying that Singapore is often referred to poutside the country as a nanny state is a neutral comment. i asure you, it is a commonly held perception. After all... it *is* a nanny state. It is also fair to state that the government controls the press so tightly that it cannot be seen be debated whether Nathan should be be reselected. Have you heard Andrew Kuan speak on TV? I haven't... I saw, however, Lee Hsien Loong alledge he was involved in activities which would deny his eligibility. These are matters of public record. Perhaps in our urge to be "fair" we don't want to state all the facts. Quite a thin line, and given the Lee family's suing the Economist And I didn't hear about any rumours on Kallang etc. I mean, in all fairness, it's not like Singapore has an organised opposition. When people have the scant chance to vote against a PAP candidate they do, but they do not vote as part of an organised opposition. This means that the PAP is literally the only party. They are great politicians and have done a lot of good, but frankly disallowing someone from competing for a post which oversees the Goverment... you must admit in any other country at the very least University studets would be fearlessly holding debates on the issue, and not cowering behind the threat of not getting a civil service job. Newspapers would be commenting on it (not just the ST). Political commentary show hosts would at the very least invite opposing viewpoints to debate. Locals would not be afraid to air their views in public. And the National Day song would not be such.. well.. pap. I love the fact that right now there is a load of ads on telly urging people that the time has come, there are only a few candidates left, your vote will make the difference... are they talkign about the pres election? No! Project Superstar! Singapore's unique form of self expression!!!! Surely you are ready for democracy after that...

You expect us to read the above ah?--Huaiwei 04:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed useless information

Removed ==Comments from political leaders==

On 12 July, 2005, Lim Boon Heng, the Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) expressed NTUC's support for Nathan. [1]
On 13 July, 2005, Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng said that he was cheered by Nathan 's decision to run for a second term in office, adding that Nathan had done a good job in the last six years. [2]
On 14 July, 2005, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that he was very happy that Nathan had decided to run for a second term as President, adding that Nathan would make an excellent candidate. [3]
On 17 July, 2005, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, Minister-in-Charge of Muslim Affairs and Minister for the Environment and Water Resources expressed support for Nathan's re-election bid. [4]
On 4 August, 2005, President S R Nathan says he's ready for a contest, after election writ issued. [5]
On 7 August, 2005, Second National Development Minister Mr Lim Swee Say said what matters more is a good president, not contest. [6]
On 7 August, 2005, President S R Nathan said race and religion will not be an issue should contest for Presidency take place. [7]
On 9 August, 2005, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister of Singapore emphasises importance of electing the right person as President and urged potential candidates to be completely open about their record. [8]
On 11 August, 2005, President S R Nathan said Singaporeans mature enough to know what is good for country. [9]
On 13 August, 2005, MP Irene Ng said Presidential election not a time for excitement once every 6 years [10]

I don't see how showing that a bunch of government figures endorse the government candidate, and saying almost exactly the same thing in doing that, conveys any information. Furthermore, only one view is presented here-the PAPs-while opposition outcries that this is essentially a one-man show election are not represented. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. This smells like propaganda. --Ji ang 04:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Singaporean presidential election, 2005. 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]