Talk:Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Public Prosecutor/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 18:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I will review this and I will throttle the pace by doing them all, as they are of similar structure and relevance to Singapore. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In order to up the speed of these reviews, I'll be taking two or three at a time since my own delays with life have compounded the delays on these reviews. Now, the DABlinks checked out fine, but ref 63 seems to be not functioning right on my ref checker because it showing the link to the "original" as "http://www.singaporelaw.sg/rss/judg/46431.html" and there is currently and archive for it. So it seems no issue with that exists. However, there is an issue with the images used in the article - they are simply not relevant to the case at hand.


 * 1) File:New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures in various languages and versions.jpg ⋅- is just a picture of the books. The caption reads: "The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, published in various languages by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society" though this information should be in the text instead of the caption. Why is File:Operation Tiger Balm 09 Singapore infantry soldiers.jpg ⋅used? There is no direct benefit to the article for showing the soldiers. Also another perplexing one is File:Lewes-udsigt.jpg - which again adds no context to the article. I'd much rather see an image of the plaintiff, the judges, anything pertaining to the case over this collection of images. The background to the case is also the one area of noticeable omission, the matter and circumstance which brought the case and the parties involved are missing. I think this would not be too hard to address. While the details on the case are well-written, the absent information and the images represent a problem. Though while addressing the issues, some reduction of the legal jargon (read: the terms and the Latin) should be done. Placing this on hold. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the images of the soldiers and Lewes. Free photographs of Yong Pung How (the High Court judge who heard the case) may be found at commons:Category:Yong Pung How. Which would be most suitable and where in the article should I place the photograph? Could you identify the legal jargon that should be reduced? I only noticed audi alteram partem (which only occurs once and is explained well) and ultra vires (which could be more problematic). Regarding the lack of background information, I have pinged Professor Smuconlaw. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Any latin terms should be detailed in plain English. Though the summary is a bit dense... but may be unescapable: "Orders 179 and 123 which deregistered the Singapore Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses and banned publications of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society are not unconstitutional or ultra vires." And "She notes that this "exaltation of efficiency over all other interests" creates a mala fides situation..." And "The appellants contended that Minister had fettered his discretion when making Order 123." Other terms like "ex parte". Though I think that may be essentially all of them. For images, the image has to be relevant... the judge is definitely relevant. I'd insert it with a section on Yong Pung How's opinion on the case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Image of Chief Justice Yong Pung How added. I also removed the order numbers from the first sentence of the summary (the second sentence reads fine to me) and added a brief definition of "mala fides". Since the term "ex parte" occurs within the name of another case, adding a brief definition would disrupt the flow of the sentence. For ultra vires, is adding a definition sufficient or should instances of the term be kept to a minimum? Instances which occur just before a statute section number can be changed to "beyond the powers", but other instances are much harder to remove. Professor Smuconlaw indicated that "the names of other appellants are not stated in the case report", while another Singaporean lawyer, Chensiyuan, believes that "the background is sufficiently established". --Hildanknight (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A few comments:
 * "She notes that this 'exaltation of efficiency over all other interests' creates a mala fides situation ..." and "The appellants contended that Minister had fettered his discretion when making Order 123.". I am struggling to see what the difficulty with these sentences is. "Exaltation of efficiency" may not be a very common phrase but it is a quotation and so should not be altered, and it is not really that hard to understand (it was suggested that the court had exalted or gave superior status to efficiency over other interests). "Fettered his discretion" is a term of art and so should also not be altered: see "Fettering of discretion in Singapore administrative law". Similarly, is that really so difficult to understand?
 * Use of ex parte in case names. I am not sure it is necessary to explain this in the main text, though if it is desired I guess it could be put in a footnote. It may be better to put the explanation in the "Ex parte" article and then link to it. (Note that the term ex parte is used in different contexts to mean slightly different things. Currently, the "Ex parte" article does not clearly explain this particular use of the term.) It used to be commonplace for UK judicial review cases to be titled R. v. Government Department, ex parte Actual Applicant. In this context, ex parte essentially meant "on behalf of", and reflected the fact that the case was theoretically brought by the Crown (R. = Rex/Regina) against the government department on behalf of the applicant, even though it would be the applicant who would hire a lawyer to bring the case: see, for example, . I think this method of case naming was found to be confusing, so modern cases tend to be titled R. (on the application of Applicant) v. Government Department, which is often abbreviated to just R. (Applicant) v. Government Department.
 * "[A] section on Yong Pung How's opinion on the case ...". This is unnecessary, because the entire judgment is by the judge sitting alone, as the infobox indicates.
 * — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar with the legal terms, or latin, but I suppose that because it is legal jargon and it not too impenetrable that I really can't hold it back. And I am more familiar with the USA and UK courts formal statements on the merits of the case that come following the ruling. This, again, is not something that may be feasible or even relevant to Singaporean legal matters. It was probing to see if anything was really missed, and everything checked out. Thanks for adding the image of the judge. I think it might be a bit larger than it needs to be, but its a style matter. I'll go ahead and pass this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)