Template:Did you know nominations/Administrative law in Singapore

Administrative law in Singapore

 * ... that Singapore is said to emphasize a largely "green-light" approach towards administrative law, given the Government's focus on efficiency?
 * ALT 1: ... that administrative law is said to be important in Singapore as parliamentary control of the executive is almost negligible due to its Westminster government system dominated by one political party?
 * ALT 2: ... that Singapore is said to espouse a "green-light" approach towards administrative law – that good government should be sought through the political process – given the Government's focus on efficiency?
 * Reviewed: Russo–Prussian alliance
 * Comment: The article was moved from a sandbox on 28 December 2011. The main hook is evidenced by footnote 3 (see the "Approaches to administrative law" section), and the ALT 1 hook by footnote 4 (see "Introduction").

Created/expanded by Adeline.sim.2009 (talk), Charlenex (talk), Jeremyliang.2009 (talk), Silin.tan.2009 (talk), Subject.to.kumar (talk), and Zhihan.Eugene (talk). Nominated by Smuconlaw (talk) at 17:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In 20 random samples for duplications, this and this came up as hits. Can you confirm if these are not instances of plagiarism?
 * As regards, the phrase "a decision on a competent matter is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it then the courts can interfere" is a quotation in footnote 128 which is in quotation marks, so I don't think this is a problem. As for , the phrase "unreasonable in the special sense given to the term in Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation" is from the case Lines International Holding (S) Pte. Ltd. v. Singapore Tourist Promotion Board, and this is referenced by footnote 88. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just had to ask, since I really cannot locate these sentences.--Lionratz (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In addition, I think the hook can be improved on to increase readability. For example, I don't think that most readers would understand the meaning of '"green-light" approach' that you mentioned. I also don't really see the link between the photo included and the main subject matter of this article, and I got the impression that the photo was included for the sake of having a photo. That being said though, the photo is appropriately tagged and passes checks. I just don't see the point of the photo being included in the first place.--Lionratz (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was hoping that readers would be intrigued to find out what a "green-light" approach is, and thus read the article. Perhaps the ALT 1 hook is better? On consideration, I agree with you about the photograph. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the hook, I think the original hook is better, just that you might want to expand on the "green-light". I think there should be enough characters to do so. ALT1 does not have the same impact, I feel. However, it is up to you to chose the most suitable one. Just let me know which one you would prefer. And I will remove the photograph from this nomination. Any objections?--Lionratz (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, how's ALT 2? Sure, you can remove the photograph. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

AGF on offline sources.--Lionratz (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)