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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Has any law/decree etc. ever been struck down on the basis of this article? The article as is suggests that no, but does not explicitly says so. Circéus (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
You're right – no statute has yet been successfully invalidated for inconsistency with Article 15. Do you think this should be mentioned in the article? There won't be a reference for it, though. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
That is an interesting problem, both regarding the slight PoV issues (I don't trust an constitutional article of this type that basically never gets applied) and the sourcing (which is basically the issue of Evidence of absence/proving a negative)... Circéus (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
As far as I am aware, only one statutory provision and one executive order have been successfully struck down for incompatibility with the fundamental liberties in the Singapore Constitution. In the first case, the decision was overturned on appeal, and in the second case the court judgment was reversed by way of a constitutional and a legislative amendment (see "Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs" and "Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs"). That's what makes constitutional and administrative law in Singapore so interesting. We've only been an independent republic since 1965; give us some time! — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What is "Thio, pp. 72–73" and "Thio, p. 76" referring to? It could be " Thio Li-ann (2010), 'Contentious Liberty: Regulating Religious Propagation in a Multi-religious Secular Democracy"', "Thio Li-ann (30 October 2007), 'Secularism, the Singapore way"' or 'Thio Li-ann (1995), "The Secular Trumps the Sacred: Constitutional Issues Arising from Colin Chan v Public Prosecutor"' Also, this article would be a quick fail if it undergoes FA review because citations are repeated in "References", and not all citations are stated in the "References" section. 175.156.242.240 (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity, which I've clarified. However, I don't think it's necessary to set out all the citations in the "References" section, only those which are repeated numerous times. The rest of the citations are in the "Notes" section. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–02:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
