Talk:Politics of Singapore

message: The article states that a constitutional amendment must be supported by two-thirds of the votes in a national referendum, in addition to a two-thirds majority in Parliament in the second and third readings. Could someone confirm the validily of the referendum requirement?
--ww 13:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so. Only amendment of articles regarding spore sovereignty needs to undergo a referendum. I mean just think of the no. of times our constitution had bene amended, have we got any referendum??
Quote from the constitution itself:
Amendment of Constitution
5. —(1) Subject to this Article and Article 8, the provisions of this Constitution may be amended by a law enacted by the Legislature. 
(2) A Bill seeking to amend any provision in this Constitution shall not be passed by Parliament unless it has been supported on Second and Third Readings by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of the elected Members of Parliament referred to in Article 39 (1) (a). 
*(2A) Unless the President, acting in his discretion, otherwise directs the Speaker in writing, a Bill seeking to amend — 
*Article 5 (2A) was not in operation at the date of this Reprint. This Article repeals former Article 5 (2A) (enacted by Act 5/91) which Article was also not in operation at the date of its repeal by Act 41/96.
(a) this clause or Article 5A;
(b) any provision in Part IV;
(c) any provision in Chapter 1 of Part V or Article 93A;
(d) Article 65 or 66; or
(e) any other provision in this Constitution which authorises the President to act in his discretion,
shall not be passed by Parliament unless it has also been supported at a national referendum by not less than two-thirds of the total number of votes cast by the electors registered under the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap. 218). 
(3) In this Article, “amendment” includes addition and repeal
I would think, from the above, that an amendment only needs a 2/3 vote from parliament, unless it is related to Article 5A (President may withhold assent to certain constitutional amendments), Part IV (Fundamental Liberties), Part V Chaper 1 (The PResident), Part VIII Article 93A (Jurisdiction to determine questions as to validity of Presidential election), and Article 65, 66 (Prorogation and dissolution of Parliament; General elections). In addition, Article 6 also says:
No surrender of sovereignty or relinquishment of control over the Police Force or the Armed Forces except by referendum
6. —(1) There shall be —
(a) no surrender or transfer, either wholly or in part, of the sovereignty of the Republic of Singapore as an independent nation, whether by way of merger or incorporation with any other sovereign state or with any Federation, Confederation, country or territory or in any other manner whatsoever; and
(b) no relinquishment of control over the Singapore Police Force or the Singapore Armed Forces,
unless such surrender, transfer or relinquishment has been supported, at a national referendum, by not less than two-thirds of the total number of votes cast by the electors registered under the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap. 218). 
(2) For the purposes of this Article —
"Singapore Armed Forces" means the Singapore Armed Forces raised and maintained under the Singapore Armed Forces Act (Cap. 295), and includes any civil defence force formed under the Civil Defence Act (Cap. 42) and such other force as the President may, by notification in the Gazette, declare to be an armed force for the purposes of this Article;
"Singapore Police Force" means the Singapore Police Force and the Special Constabulary established under the Police Force Act (Cap. 235) and any Auxiliary Police Force created in accordance with Part IX of that Act, and includes the Vigilante Corps established under the Vigilante Corps Act (Cap. 343) and such other force as the President may, by notification in the Gazette, declare to be a police force for the purposes of this Article.
Hope this clears things up abit?--Huaiwei 06:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutional Amendments 

message: I think its high time we started articles on the central political buildings that house the critical government functions in Singapore...I was shocked not to find them! And I just wanted to write a description of City Hall MRT Station! Oh well. Lets get started on it. Two things I'm about to start: Parliament House, Singapore and Padang (Singapore). We really need to get into this, otherwise its going to be very hard  organising, classfiying and categorising areas later if we procrastinate, especially if we need to address them  collectively. Oh, the the article on Singapore's urban geography could address such areas too, not too detailed (as that wouldn't be its roled) but show how they are interlinked. -- Natalinasmpf 19:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singapore political and muncipal buildings 

message: Hmm...can this article be hived off as a seperate article? I was intending to list some stuff about the parliament when I realised its merely a redirect! :D--Huaiwei 11:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeap. There should be a separate article on Parliament of Singapore, the same applies to the judiciary system, etc. There will be enough content for these to be separate articles. --Vsion 09:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Parliament of Singapore

message: :Hmm, and so? Perhaps this comment is on the wrong site?The Fascist 14:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One sided in Malaysia? No longer the case after the last March 8 2008 general elections. So this proves that both Malaysia and Singapore are still democratic. You should blame or appeal more to the voters themselves. Do not give up hope. With the web more ppl can be aware more quickly without borders. - Red1 D Oon (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Sided Parliament 

message: The first and second sections seem to overlap (they contain large chunks of the same text). Someone more knowledgeable than I in this area should probably have a go at rewriting them. I would, but I'd be afraid of losing important information or rendering it incomprehensible. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 23:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup request 

message: :“The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature.” British author Alan Shadrake, who wrote,Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock, begs to disagree and was convicted of what the Attorney General’s office says are statements that impugned the impartiality, integrity and independence of the judiciary. This is an important case reflecting on judicial and press freedoms, and it is not mentioned.
:: “The legislature is the parliament, which consists of the president as its head and a single chamber whose members are elected by popular vote.” Rather, as The Economist (April 23, 2011, “The men in white are always right"), says, “Citizens in GRCs [Group Representation Constituencies] vote for a party, not an individual MP. The GRCs can have four, five or six representatives [the article says three to six] and the party that wins the constituency gets them all. . . . “the party with the deepest pockets and most candidates wins the GRCs, which this time will return 75 of the 87 elected MPs.” 
: Non-GRCs members are not permitted for vote on key issues, such as constitutional amendment, the budget or a vote of no confidence. This effectively negates their role, but is not mentioned in this article.
::The opening paragraphs make no mention of the lack of presidential elections since 1999. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions with which to deal

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:PAP logo variation.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:SDP logo variation.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: In order to move this article up a notch, I think a good discussion of power structures is necessary.
This seems to be an important reference. Even though the  PAP made clean sweeps from 1968 to 1980, in the 1970s the PAP still worked on converting many Chinese unions to the NTUC, and the union leadership formed an important part of the grassroots in the 1960s. Even though the term "grassroots" has a rather soul-less connotation to it now, the union grassroots explains the PAP's victory in 1959 (compared to its modest entry in 1955) and how it secured power.
Important events from a 10,000 mile perspective: 
*Leftist grassroots dominated the PAP 1955-1963  
*Barisan Sosialis split meant that "PAP was down on the floor"; since the leftists comprised about 80% of the rank and file, LKY at that time thought the PAP was finished 
*The atmosphere of the PAP increasingly departed from a large bulk of its original trade union base in the late 1960s into the 1970s — this is the tension between "technocrats" and "grassroots". Goh Keng Swee was a technocrat, going so far as to propose eugenics schemes. Ong Teng Cheong had stronger relations with the grassroots. (This is the analysis of papers I have found, not my own analysis!) Funnily enough, they were eventually both perceived as dissenters.
elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 05:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trade unions in Singapore  

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 29 September 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Singapore Parliament House.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Politics of Singapore. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051225130310/http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554 to http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040117090659/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA360012004?open&of=ENG-SGP to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA360012004?open&of=ENG-SGP
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080822063958/http://www.istana.gov.sg/PresidentSRNathan/index.htm to http://www.istana.gov.sg/PresidentSRNathan/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion