Talk:Exclusion of judicial review in Singapore law

Exclusion of judicial review in Singapore law has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 23, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 11, 2013.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 1989 the Singapore Parliament reversed the effect of a 1988 Court of Appeal case holding that the Internal Security Act did not exclude judicial review of decisions to detain without trial?

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Singapore Low‑importance

	Singapore portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in October 2011. Further details are available here.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Exclusion of judicial review in Singapore law. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/landmark/[1988]_SGCA_16.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/landmark/[1971]_SGHC_10.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/landmark/[1988]_SGCA_16.html
Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/64ATf2EyI?url=http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/landmark/[1988]_SGCA_16.html to http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/landmark/%5B1988%5D_SGCA_16.html

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) 05:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]