Talk:Human rights in Singapore

message: the first paragraph is a needless repetition of subsequent facts about ISA and detention. very, very poor opening paragraph. Chensiyuan 10:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor opening paragraph 

message: No reference was provided for the statement saying euthanasia is illegal in Singapore. -Jonathan Tan, Undergraduate, National University of Singapore. (Sept 2007)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.3.6 (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for reference 

message: Hello,
An RfC has been initiated to discuss Cenwin88lee's recent conduct. I invite all interested editors to come give their input at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cenwin88lee. Thanks! --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on [[User:Cenwin88lee]]'s conduct 

message: Why is none of this mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Singapore?  I doubt if anyone is going to use "Human rights in Singapore" as a search term in Wikipedia. If you look up Singapore, you'll find a glowing report about their country's history, GDP, etc., but no mention of the tyranny of their government.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.190.18 (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: By talking about "tyranny" you reveal your own POV. The information on Wikipedia has to be neutral. Singapore#Government and politics has a link to this article and also does mention that some like Amnesty International have criticised the Singapore government on human rights grounds. Singapore is a summary article, and further details are supposed to go in the sub-articles such as this one. You can try to insert more detail in the Singapore article but it is already too long and you will find there is not consensus for significant additions to it. We have been over all this before. -- Alarics (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: a neutral point of view, represents all significant views fairly. Since the human rights are significant, in my opinion this deserves to have place in the article Singapore. Since the human rights have in my opinion high influense in the politics, economy, media, environmental issues and welfare of the state, it is a significant view. Watti Renew (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed so. That is why criticisms of Singapore are mentioned in Singapore#Government and politics. -- Alarics (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet strangely, human rights don't have a "high influence" on the "politics, economy, media, environmental issues, and welfare of the state" when it comes to the articles for countries like Canada or Germany (both featured articles). Quigley (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably that is because there are far fewer criticisms of human rights in those two countries than in the case of Singapore. -- Alarics (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: From whom? Western governments? Western-based advocacy groups like Amnesty International with Western ideals of what are human rights? Should certain advocacy groups determine Wikipedia's coverage of certain topics in its articles? How do we quantify this? Quigley (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Complete coverage of all encyclopedic aspects of Singapore (including its government, its economy, and its environment) will automatically include much of the topics presented in a "human rights" context. But if the label "human rights" is used to describe such things as the punishments of the judicial system or labor relations, then it inherently frames the issues in an anti-government way, which is why a specific "human rights" section is undesirable. Quigley (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you don't realise that I am agreeing with you. You have removed the specific "human rights" section from Singapore and I support that. -- Alarics (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you reformatted it, I indented my first comment to show that I was replying primarily to Watti Renew. Quigley (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  My intetion is to address this basic consern: Difficult to find this info.Every article should have all information fairly including the human rights. WP:NPOV …all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias.  Correcting this in the article Singapore: Having the human rights as own paragraph under “Government and politics” would in my opinion fulfill everyones good intentions. I started this but did not move the rest of the subject in the right place, which may have confused you. When these will be combined the text will be easier to find and will not take much more place. I will discuss this later in Talk: Singapore. Watti Renew (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficult to find this info 

message: Chensiyuan , in my opinion the international agreements deserves its place with the latest ref. Here you can find the copy of the latest Amnesty International report: Amnesty Annual Reports 2011 Downloads and the Full Report 2011. 
 There are many international agreements Singapore has not signed: Civil and political rights, abolition of the death penalty, Economic, social and cultural rights and Elimination of Racial Discrimination. In my opinion the comparison to other countries gives additional value: For example Germany had signed all these agreements by 2009. Watti Renew (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think listing the agreements signed and not signed is fine.  Boldface and comparisons to other countries, on the other hand, are unnecessary. Jpatokal (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: International agreements

message: Currently the structure of this section is very odd. For one it starts listing examples right off the first paragraph, when examples are typically worked in later. Also the link to Human Rights in Burma at the top seems quite out of place, seeing that it is related only to the one liner mentioned, and is technically more a Burma/Singapore relationship issue rather than a Burma human righhts issue. Its as if specific attention is being drawn to this particular case. Not to the extent of WP:UNDUE but close. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of Migrant Workers section 

message: Hi, Zhanzhao, as you've seen. I added Foreign relations of Singapore to the Human rights in Singapore because as a foreigner as my own government informed me personally, you are not allowed to criticize the local government, which I totally respect.
Not sure if that situation is for all foreigners the same but for e.g. 2015 Southeast Asian haze was something I associated only with Singapore as it affects my personal health on a daily basis since more than 3 weeks now. Of course consulting a local doctor and getting advise makes absolutely sense. But in terms of "Human rights" thinking it's only a local problem of Singapore is a bit unfair and "narrowminded".  The article Foreign relations of Singapore helps a bit more to understand this. To make it clear, I'm not criticizing Singapore on this issue as it's not solvable by a single affected country alone, some locals also told me that they don't think it will be solved within the next 10 years (which might be true if you don't think/write about it). 
: But of course, in public no one talks about it, that does not mean that people don't think and make their own judgement about it (again something which is related to "Human rights"). And for me, this was like a "hidden secret" of South East Asia, I discovered myself in 2015. As it basically was also only mentioned in the news (and you can also check the creation date of:  2015 Southeast Asian haze), which was after the elections. But I believe I'm not writing a Conspiracy theory as I'm more into facts than into fiction.
: Back to Human rights in Singapore: So how is this now associated with this article itself? For me (as a foreigner and I'm not the only one) it affects: "2 Human rights under domestic law" (2.2 Freedom of expression and association) and more important (but as I did not ellaborate or change anything in this article, of course a bit unclear): "3 Social Issues" which could be probably improved with adding a new section for the Southeast Asian haze which seems a problem of at least half of the ASEAN states (5 countries out of 10 memberstates) since at least 10 years by now (agreements where signed in 2005), but basically since then it repeats almost ever 2 years, see also: ASEAN "Environment" section, part after "deforestation". I was also thinking about moving this "social issue" to: Human rights in Asia but I'll guess it's irrelevant for 95% of the +/-50 states listed there. But there's also Human rights in East Asia. 
: But I'll guess you have another view and can tell me where the "haze topic" would fit in, if this is 100% not appropriate for you to expand the article? I'm still trying to understand how a topic like this is not listed as a "social issue" since it exists since +10 years and actually finding opinions on this topic is also a bit delicate, but I already stated my "disclaimer". --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Huggi, sorry I really am not really getting what you are trying to explain. I'm guessing that you think foreigners have restrictions on criticising the government, therefore it is a foreign relations issue? Thats a bit of an extrapolation - as far as I understand there isn't any law against foreigners criticizing the government, though do correct me if I'm wrong here. The closest I can think of is probably Singapore's Sedition Act, but that is universal and covers everyone, locals and foreigners alike; and sedition acts are not even unique to Singapore - See list on the side of the Sedition article. Also I don't quite get how the Haze issue comes into play here. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zhanzhao thanks for your feedback. I understand. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  (possible/new) "Haze section"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Human rights in 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/20080604195731/http://www.web.amnesty.org:80/report2005/sgp-summary-eng to http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/sgp-summary-eng
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100125195351/http://www.mha.gov.sg:80/basic_content.aspx?pageid=74 to http://www.mha.gov.sg/basic_content.aspx?pageid=74
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805013030/http://thereport.amnesty.org/sites/report2009.amnesty.org/files/documents/air09-en.pdf to http://thereport.amnesty.org/sites/report2009.amnesty.org/files/documents/air09-en.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150414140057/http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/wr2011.pdf to http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/wr2011.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805013030/http://thereport.amnesty.org/sites/report2009.amnesty.org/files/documents/air09-en.pdf to http://thereport.amnesty.org/sites/report2009.amnesty.org/files/documents/air09-en.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There should really be a section dedicated to political repression, persecution of opposition parties, jailing of protesters, etc. It's alluded to, but almost completely absent from the article in any significant detail. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Information lacking

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Human rights in 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/20110503225911/http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=14C1E722FEE4F90E80256DFE0068898C&lang=e to http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=14C1E722FEE4F90E80256DFE0068898C&lang=e
*Added  tag to http://report2010.amnesty.org/sites/default/files/AIR2010_AZ_EN.pdf
*Added  tag to http://static.amnesty.org/air11/amnesty_international_report_2011_en.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140220170006/http://www.mha.gov.sg/news_details.aspx?nid=MTIzMQ%3D%3D-yqlR8v6x2x4%3D to http://www.mha.gov.sg/news_details.aspx?nid=MTIzMQ%3D%3D-yqlR8v6x2x4%3D
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) 07:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have updated Singapore's ranking on the Press Freedom Index according to the latest ranking table (2020) provided by Reporters Without Borders (Revision 961634892), why was it undid?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pscmaczilhca (talk • contribs) 12:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Press Freedom Ranking of Singapore 

message: I have looked through this page and compared it with similar pages for other countries and it really needs a substantial revamp, ideally with the help of people that are more schooled in legal issues. The first section on legislation (Internal Security Act, Sedition Act, Public Order Act, etc.) just doesn't fit here and should be thrown out. What this page needs to do is to provide a proper overview of things such as:
* Right to life
* Right to health
* Right to education
* Right to work
* Right to social security
* Right to vote
* Right to a fair trial
* Freedom of association
* Freedom of movement
* Freedom of religion
* Freedom of the press
* Women's rights
* Children's rights
* Disability rights
* LGBT rights
* Migrant worker rights
Here are a few pages from countries with similar legal traditions as Singapore:
* Human rights in the United Kingdom
* Human rights in New Zealand
* Human rights in Australia
Singaporeano (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page needs a substantial revamp 

message: I was a little baffled to read the opening section of this article, as it skips over a lot of very important issues. Shouldn't "freedom of speech is severely curtailed in Singapore" and "Singapore is considered to be among the worst in the world for press freedom" show up in the introduction? I'm not an experienced Wikipedia-editor, but it seemed really weird to me.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4652:AD15:0:B5CA:C301:B357:BE9 (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased opening paragraph