Jump to content

Talk:Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleChng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 4, 2012Good article nomineeListed
December 8, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 20, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Singapore case Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs, which held that courts could assess the lawfulness of orders made under the Internal Security Act, was overridden by statute in 1989?
Current status: Delisted good article

Article history information

[edit]

Move?

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


User:Smuconlaw/Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home AffairsChng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs

Thanks! — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Large amounts of uncited text, especially in the "Aftermath" section. Z1720 (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.