Talk:Chinese Singaporean Community

Richotek The entry was entitled "Chinese Singaporean" It will be more appropriate to describe it as Singaporeans of Chinese descent". However, it is also misleading in its contents - it departs from its theme indicated in its title. Its disjointed and undocumented narratives and generalizations portending to be authoritative details or facts are unabashedly biased and without basis.

Most seriously, it should be removed immediately because it is devoid of scholarly based content and its authorship is more akin to a casual narrative from a jaundiced point of view of its author.

Wikipedia's readership or audience is ill served by the entry and should be removed immediately without further delay. It runs counter to the premise of Wikipedia. Subtle societal slurs and thinly veiled colorizations of local put-downs should not be tolerated in this public knowledgebase.

This article is ungrammatical and sounds like it's from someone with an axe to grind. Makes me really embarassed to be a Singaporean. It sounds like someone trying to make sociological generalizations from anecdotes and personal peeves. Pathetic! Should really be deleted or totally rewritten. Just look at the neutrality managed with other, far more controversial subjects, on the history of Hawaii for example.

Facts Right?
I think some parts of this articles are not really NPOV, or even factually accurate, I quote a part of the text from the section headered "Language"

''The usage of English is also common in the working society, and all students are required to master English as their master subject and speak only Mandarin in class. Singlish is also commonly used among the Lower-class Chinese notably among the contractors and blue-collar job workers. English is the first language among most Christians, as they attend church services in the English language.''

Seems quite stereotyped and/or biased to me. I think this page beeds cleanup. -- fiveless 14:47, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Additional note, there are alot of factual inaccuracies. I mean alot. It's definitely biased and some secions I am totally unable to manage..
 * I Agree that it's not that NPOV. For example: "An extremely small minority follow either Islam or Hinduism." --*drew 15:59, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "speak only Mandarin in class", much of fiction I supposed. Not at all. 203.78.9.149 09:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn't Hokchew same as Foochow? Yet they are listed as two items. A-giau 11:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes it is Maycontainpeanuts 08:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I feel that something has gone wrong with Singaporean Chinese (presumably they are the ones who have created this entry) if so many people have, on the history page, claimed to have checked for spelling errors and yet we have "uneral ceromony" instead of "funeral ceremony" and "coloborium" instead of "columbarium". Moreover, it speaks volumes of Singaporeans' command of the language when they say that monks reside over prayers and not preside over prayers. Not to mention their use of the obnoxious and disagreeable phrase "ashy remains [of the deceased]" instead of the more sensitive and easier-to-type "ashes". Lastly, when you say "dominate most of the economy" the 'most of' is redundant, since 'dominate' already has the connotation of 'most of'.

Also could someone please provide a more politically correct and historically sensitive account of the race riots in May 1964 towards the end of the article? Maycontainpeanuts 08:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)