Talk:Vivian Balakrishnan

Copyvio

There's been copyvio from the MCYS official profile on Balakrishnan from the very first edit to this page. Some of it has been reworded over the years but a significant amount still remained. I have removed the offending sections. I'll be contacting a copyright specialist admin about what to do with the revision history which contain copyright violations. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

language of the whole video affair.

Part of my problem with how the issue is addressed is that Balakrishnan's team purposely cloaked the accusation in such a tactical manner, to make their team look innocent while casting doubt on the SDP. While this was done successfully somewhat in the state press, they shouldn't be allowed to earn such a victory on Wikipedia of all places, and I think we should be allowed to reflect just how bad the backlash was. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 09:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The accusation wording in the source you provided was made in the context of the subject accussing them of suppressing the video, not accusing them of having a gay agenda. Plucking the word out of context invalidates the source for the purpose it is being used. Attempts to explain how these two are related and hence should be allowed would only show how it is not straight forward in the first plce. As mentioned, provide a reliable source that shows the subject accusing them of having a gay agenda if you want that in. However, that saying, you ARE allowed to word it such that the subject was accusing them of suopressing the video itself. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Didn't know u can link words like agenda to gay agenda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.13.233 (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the affair was about a video over gay rights, using wikilinks helps readers realise what the speaker is alluding to. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds more like you were insinuating... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.13.11 (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not up to us to determine what we think the subject is alluding to. That amounts to Original Research. Btw I just noticed that the report which included the "out of the closet line" (20 April) actually came BEFORE the report where he took them to task for suppressing the video (April 25). Unless you can show that this 2 are now somehow related, putting the line there is one while chunk of weasel wording as it implies a chronological order that isn't true.Zhanzhao (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It is clearly related; external analysis by Alex Au shows this (not original research), other press sources realise the two are put together. First, he accuses the SDP of having an agenda; in the second statement he elaborates on it. It is cleverly-crafted of course, but his statements are reliably sourced. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that we are supposed to include a statement that was not even chronologically in the correct place, to point out an allusion, based on the editorial of a blogger's original research. Need I list out how many policies you would be breaking if such an edit was allowed in?Zhanzhao (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

She is clearly a professional journalist, or a journalist sitting on a publication with editorial discretion. I put the order back in its chronological position -- in fact that was where it originally was. "Coming out of the closet" might confuse some people who are not aware of the meaning of the phrase; it deserves to be wikilinked. The phrase is almost never used in any other context; it is not original research to wikilink the primary and intended reading of the phrase. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Then stop beating around the bush and just quote the source of this professional journalist's writing in this publication you are speaking of, so we can all tell if this is a reliable source, or at least we can sent it to te RS board for qualification.Zhanzhao (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex Au has an entire article. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyon can claim"John Doe" has an article on any subject. In Wikipedia, requesting for a source has a very specific meaning, your answer really does not mean anything here. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The last time I checked, "come out of the closet" has 2 meanings. Don't think it's right for you to infer anything. "agenda" is a general term.202.156.13.10 (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

By any measure of standard English, it has only one. But perhaps some people are more poorly informed about the English language. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Elle, there user above obviously meant that there was a literal intepretation and a figurative intepretation. Irregardless of your stance on the matter, please stick to addressing the points, not attacking the editor. And you are getting close to making it a personal attack, so please cool off. As an admin, you should know better. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I meant it in good faith. Perhaps for some Singaporeans, English is not their first language and might miss the main connotation of that phrase. In America, Australia and the UK, the phrase primarily only means one thing, politicians coming out of the closet for non-sexual secrets are generally extended senses. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't mind me saying this, Elle, but considering that you are the one refusing to accept that there were alternative meanings to the saying, it is ridiculous for you to claim that it is the other party that was more poorly informed about the English language. AFG or otherwise. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack? I'm surprised you are making claims that you are superior in the English language (just because you are not in Singapore) but have zero idea that "come out of the closet" is an idiom. Isn't it basic knowledge? Are you saying "agenda" over there refers to "gay agenda" too?202.156.13.11 (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised you are unaware it's an idiom. according to here, "come out of the closet" has another meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.13.10 (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm I stand corrected. So there are 3 meanings. 2 figuratives, and one literal meaning. Who says Wikipedia isn't educational :D Zhanzhao (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

concealing of Balakrishnan's anti-gay rhetoric

One of the editors is trying to edit the article so as to downplay his rhetoric employed against the LGBT community, going so far as to completely remove the secondary source's interpretation of his rhetoric when that secondary source is used as a reference; AFAIK secondary sources are preferable to primary ones. As far as I know, there is only one primary modern meaning attached to "come out of the closet"; the other meaning is now secondary. Furthermore, the editor deletes wikilinks to articles on appropriate issues that would inform readers of the appropriate background. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

IMHO although secondary sources may be preferable to primary ones, but primary quotes word for word outprioritises secondary source intepretations as intepretetions are subject to opinions (of the writer), whereas reported words are what you see on the box. I may be misinformed, but do feel free to other senior admins/editors views on this. in the mean time, I am reverting the text to what the subject was quoted as saying, as those are undeniable facts. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a good thing would be to simply make clear whose viewpoint is whose. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

When we include the exact words the subject was reported to have said, it would not matter whose viewpoint it is. At face value, those words are raw information and objective in nature. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not a tabloid or political opinion piece. We should refer strictly to the actual words or actions of the protagonists and the outcomes of elections. It is possible for a straight politician to champion a gay cause, in the same way a gay politician can champion a conservative agenda. Asking a would be politician to be upfront about his agenda is legitimate and relevant to the decision of the electorate. In this case, the voters decided clearly, as evidenced by the electoral result. This trumps the views of individual authors of the secondary sources.

The problem is that La goutte de pluie is trying to fight a proxy political battle through Wikipedia. Grow up and try to cultivate a neutral point of view in the great Wikipedia tradition. Do not abuse your privileges by resorting to blocking edits to this page or suppressing facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.112 (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay this is getting personal (again). Editors on both sides need to cool down and stay focused on arguing how to improve the article rather than making comments about the editors themselves. Also, I'm assuming that the various 220.225.*.*** is just the same editor, it would be a good idea for you to register an account so that when any fellow editor has anything to highlight to you we scan do so on your user page rather than at a subject's talk page. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not me.202.156.13.11 (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Then that advice goes for you too. Its better to register an account if you intend to remain a long term contributor over here, makes being part of the commuity and commnication among its members much easier. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel the need to get a nick just to prove whether I'm a good editor or not. However I would like to question why Elle had to delete and refused to update the education section after abusing her tools to semi protect the page. Immediately after I took the initiative to 'repair' the page and rewrote the part , she feels the need again to throw accusations that I " violated copyrights" "use govt language" and rewrote all of my part. (This happened right after she got upset over how she should stop harping about the idiom (refer above) ). While you call for basic respect, I feel none coming from her. This is just an education section we are talking about. How fanciful do you want it to be when it's pretty straightforward?202.156.13.11 (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not about the nickname (you can call yourself John Doe if its not taken, or a random series of numbers or alphabets if you feel like it). Its to provide a history of edits and a means of communication so that other editors can reach you to discuss problems or allow the more senior ones to guide you how to go upon your edits. With an account, you can even be reached via email. Its hard for her to give respect when she cannot tell if you are one of the other anon IPs that has been annoying her recently, since you guys are basically all "faceless". As for the education section, its a copyvio problem which had been debated so long thqt I have lost track of the status. My advice, if you feel stuff needs to be in, is grab your info (not words) from various source, keep a thesaurus handy, summarize, use functional and objective wording, and create a new section here in Talk here and put your draft in this new section so other editors can comment and enhance it for re-entry into the article. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

She seems to be rude to people with accounts. I don't see a huge difference. The copyvio was only a problem because it was cut and paste previously. I did rephase so I don't see how her edit is considered better when it's just rewording it LONGER and accusing I violated copyrights again. Neither do I see articles being summarised after her edits. They just get longer and longer. This is Wiki for goodness sake. Not some grandmother story page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.13.11 (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's hope La goutte de pluie doesn't resort to her usual vandalism under the guise of copyvio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggsauto99 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I smell a meatpuppet... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

VB as ypap chairman

Why was this not included in the article since User_talk:La_goutte_de_pluie mentioned on Tin Pei Ling's page that it is most importance to include past posts??? Vivian Balakrishnan was Chairman of the YPAP for 2 terms. By the way Zhanzhao, please make the appropriate edits to TPL's page too. The part about the treasurer post being vacated is not worth mentioning. 202.156.13.11 (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll be editing the TPL page because its a point I previously raised with Elle that it belongs in the YPAP article. Thanks for drawing my attention to it. Zhanzhao (talk)|

Why don't you add it? No one's stopping you. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Pretty obvious you are reluctant to add it in. And yet you persistently wanted Tin Pei Ling's old post to be stated. Kindly advise why so.218.186.16.247 (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not reluctant to add it in. That's fine information. I just don't have the sources at the moment at hand. I'm sorry, I'm not the one being paid to edit Wikipedia...I have a real life. In fact I'll add it in with time, since I do plan to start an article on the YPAP and all its finer adventures. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

use of honorifics and titles discouraged

Some anonymous editors mind find it wise to follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). While the government press and biographies may obnoxiously capitalise such perfectly-good-as-lower-case terms like ophthalmology or medicine, or constantly address him as "Dr" -- we do not follow such practices here. Thanks. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to using your tools to block me whenever there is a dispute. I did not copy directly from the site, so drop the accusations. 202.156.13.11 (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey elle, is this your sockpuppet? Quite obvious you are using a sockpuppet here right. 202.156.13.11 (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I occasionally get logged out, especially across public academic networks. On the other hand, you use IP-jumping to bypass blocks on disruptive editing. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Entry into politics section

Considering that I originally created that section and decided to write it, and that section went unopposed, it puzzles me at why I would be accused of "changing the meaning" of his words. I simply desired to be less dependent on quotes and to tighten the language. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If you don't think you have substantially changed the meaning of his words, then why not accept Chensiyuan's version ? Instead you have resorted to your usual behavior of insisting on pushing your point of view exclusively and banning other editors. Please explain why you have edited this page so aggressively since April 2011. What is your real motive? Why not leave this article to other editors to contribute on the basis of verified material. 220.255.1.108 (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Chensiyuan's version is based on your version. I do not think your accusation even deserves responding to, but since April I have dramatically increased the amount of references by threefold. I have been editing articles of Singaporean topics since 2004. You, my dear YPAP member, should be asked why you and your colleagues astroturf on Wikipedia so aggressively. I was only drawn to this page because editors had been removing sourced criticisms without explanation, and adding unsourced promotionalism in their stead, and furthermore, these edits were traced back to government-linked IPs. Such possible conflict of interest editing was sufficiently griveous for intervention. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Try to be truthful. You only started vandalising this page on Nomination Day of GE2011. You are simply pursuing a petty political vendetta. Grow up and understand that you cannot insist on only your version. Anyway, the your partisan edits and your abuse of admin rights have been documented for the Wikipedia community. Notice that you still dare not put yourself up for recall. 220.255.1.175 (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

She will never give up. Had she wanted to do a proper writeup for him, it would have been done ages ago. When someone initiates and tries to add new information now that GE is over, she will just intervene and accuses of copyvio, sockpuppetry, not good enough all that nonsense. By the way, I don't see the need for La goutte de pluie to add the word "originally" to the line " He originally believed in ideals like..". Oh really? Can you prove he doesn't believe in it anymore. Quite obvious she's editing again to add in her POV. It's the same with Tin Pei Ling page. I took time just to shrink the whole section and again she adds all the irrelevant stuff in it. Like I said earlier, if you insist on putting Tin Pei Ling's old positions in the YPAP council, jolly well do the same for Vivian Balakrishnan. He was YPAP chairman. Why are you ignoring it then? Add it in. 202.156.13.11 (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Structure of the article

there is currently a disagreement as to the structuring/labelling of the political career section. My position is that there is nothing inherently wrong or undesirable about splitting the career into VB's three terms. As a starting point, we can of course look at various politician Featured Articles (eg, Barack Obama, John McCain generally employ a chronological approach that do not go beyond basic adjectival description or anchor upon notable events) for guidance, but even so, I neither see an eminently consistent position across the board, nor see a need to strictly adhere to any suggested structures. Therefore the simplest way is to present the career chronologically, neatly divided into basically described terms. As it were, it's not even conventional to discuss specific controversies extensively within the politician's page per se, but that's another issue for another day. Any other views? Chensiyuan (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually its quite a related article as I just realised a glaring error in the structure thats related to the controversy section. Technically the controversies that are mentioned in the third term happened in the lead up to the 2011 election from which he won the right to a third term. Meaning it happened during the tail end of the second term. If not broken into a separate section, it should be moved to the second term writeup. will work on moving it when I have time at the PC (editing on the IPad is finicky.). Zhanzhao (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you notice for multi-term politicians in a single office (multi-term senators, etc.) they do not list actions by term. This is IMO, bad structure. Furthermore, as a matter of taste as well as intellectual property concerns, while the information at heart could be the same, I would move to structure the biography very differently from the government biography, which sounds more like a resume. Our articles should move towards the structure of any of our other articles covering politicians. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In the previous version of this article (now deleted); a very close parallel had existed between this article and the official government biographies since 2005, to the extent that editors would copy and paste content just to keep the articles "in sync". I would move to break this as much as possible. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The difference here is that the subject is not a multiple term office holder for the same post, but actually holds different offices across different terms, and does not even hold a major office in the first term (dont't think MP counts). The Obama and McCain structure is a good one to follow as they held different offices acros their political life. On an aside, I don't actually see what the problem is if the article is following a structure that is similar to government sources, as long as it stays neutral and copyvio is avoided, and the information is presented clearly. Think of it as how the typical adventure story follows the Hero's Journey structure. I'd rather stick to a clear and informative writeup rather than go out of my way to break away from it if it successfully fuffills the aforementioned criteria. It can hardly be worse than the earlier versions of the Tan Cheng Bock article before I went in to trim it down, which you should have a look at if you want an obvious example of a "promotional" piece. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I would eventually like to section it based on his duties, rather than chronologically, after I have some time to do some further research. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

role of MCYS not obvious to outsiders

The readers of this article aren't just Singaporeans you know, but international observers. Therefore we should clarify his leadership role in MCYS more explicitly vis a vis his dialogue with Lily Neo. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I though that was apparent by the "community development" wording, but you do make a good point. I'll merge both versions then to clarify that its officially part of his portfolio, rather than leave it unclear if its an unofficial influence. Zhanzhao (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks! (We note Goh Keng Swee was never Minister for any MCYS, but he held great authority over the government's social programme, nonetheless.) elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Scoop source reverted.

I added back the section about Scoop as the removal was based on the mistaken assumption that the article was not WP:RS because it was anonymously written. Having checked the source, it says instead that the identity of the author was being withheld from publication, which is quite different and a part of editorial discretion on the site; no different from "unnamed sources said". Having said that, I note that Scoop is a news aggregator which means they do not do acrive reporting themselves per se, and have more precisely reflected that in the article. Zhanzhao (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

But it is an anonymous author on an aggregator. How does that fulfill WP;RS ? I don't think Wiki works on basis of 'unnamed sources'.

There is also undue weight to this whole section. Can you and other editors help with this? Thanks. HappyTruth (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Its an aggregator but the site does say it has editors so its not a total free-for-all. In any case, I have explained in prose at it is a article that appears on a news aggregator site, so that should act as a "disclaimer" to prevent people mistaking it for their own reported article. Do explain the nature of this undue weight so we can work on it, your feedback regarding this is very vague. Zhanzhao (talk) 08:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The use of the word "dependent"

"Dependent" is a loaded word, and carries an exclusive element to it. So unless the source specifically states it as such, we should not be using this possibly misleading term here. What is "obvious" in the article is that it may be a higher weightage to it, but it is not necessarily dependent. In any case, Elle, you have violated the no more than 1 edit per 24 hour rule on this page which was created as a result of discussions concerning your past behaviour. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Pompous capitalisation and resumespeak

I don't get why HappyTruth wants to revert to this version, when the language used is too close to official websites and when it uses excessive and pompous capitalisation for terms, where Wikipedia's Manual of Style chooses to not capitalise those words. Furthermore, I wrote the language to comply with universal and well-known literary concepts like separation of powers, which is what Balakrishnan was referring to. Yes, he literally said "checks and balances on powers" -- but that is what separation of powers means. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between the two terms though, so its more accurate to just quote what he said exactly. Also changed "claimed" to stated, as its a subjective wording.Zhanzhao (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Except we have a term for the concept, so we should link to it. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Provided we are sure thats what he means though. Separation of powers is a very distinct concept, but the term "check and balances of power" is vague and used differently and subjectively and quite layman. I.e. Does check mean countering or auditing? Does balancing mean one purposely goes out to enforce it, or he trusts in a higher authority to lay down the rules? In any case, lets leave your version with both the exact quote and the nestled link and see what the rest think. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

potential copyvio by User:HappyTruth

Someone for the love of your favourite deity, please fix that mess. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

LGPD or Elle has broken 1RR again. My English is not as good as hers. But I am trying to stick to the record. She keeps removing everything that she does not like. Copyvio is her favorite accusation. This has gone on for so long, and she has been reported to the admins. She is not NPOV. Can she stay out of all this, and let other editors improve the article? Please. HappyTruth (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Simply put - you are not allowed to copy and paste into the article any information from anywhere even if you rephrase some words. She charges that you are doing this and I am inclined to agree with her. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 21:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We're supposed to paraphrase what Balakrishnan says in our own words. I think our current summary is succinct. And drop the bombastic capitalisation and self-important language from the article please! elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The section is on his reasons for entering politics. Some quotations for accuracy are necessary. I will try to improve this later. However, LGPD should not aggressively insist that only her version will do. I was hoping other editors will help. We need to work together to make Wikipedia better. HappyTruth (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

List of lawmaking and policymaking activities

Content from article section

Lawmaking and policymaking activity Acts of Parliament initiated Competition Act Community Care Endowment Fund Act Mental Capacity Act International Child Abduction Act Energy Conservation Act Transboundary Haze Pollution Act Acts of Parliament amended Children Development Co-Savings Act Children and Young Persons Act Women’s Charter Charities Act Hindu Endowments Board (HEB) Postal Services Animals and Birds Act Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority Sale of Food Act Public Utilities Act Sewerage and Drainage Act Environmental Public Health Act Radiation Protection Act Ministry activities established the Comcare Endowment Fund. During the National Day Rally 2011 held on 14 August 2011 at the National University of Singapore University Cultural Centre, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong noted that 200,000 Singaporeans have been helped since the inception of Comcare. National Day Rally 2011 implemented the Comcare Social Assistance framework implemented the Enabling Masterplan for persons with disabilities established the Central Youth Guidance Office created a formal accreditation process for social workers upgraded the Childcare sector by doubling subsidies for parents, elevating teaching standards and increasing the number of childcare centres built *SCAPE, a focal point for youth in Singapore redeveloped the National Stadium into the Singapore Sports Hub Balakrishnan also appointed the following government organisations: National Family Council, Charities Council Community Foundation National Steering Committee on Racial & Religious Harmony National Integration Council Centre for 3rd Age National Council against Problem Gambling. As Second Minister of MICA from 2006 to 2008 he supervised the design and deployment of the Next Generation National Broadband Network. Whilst at MTI from 2003 to 2006, he oversaw tourism, energy and science & technology portfolios. He coordinated the Project team that facilitated the development of the two Integrated Resorts. Under Balakrishnan, the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR): Appointed an expert panel on 11 June 2011 to conduct an in-depth review of all flood protection measures that will be implemented in Singapore over the next decade. PUB, Singapore's national water agency, accepted the recommendations of the expert panel on 30 January 2012. Handed over four waterworks (Tebrau, Gunong Pulai, Skudai and Pontian) to the state of Johor on 31 August 2011, upon the expiry of the 1961 Water Agreement with Malaysia. Announced the building of 10 new hawker centres on 8 October 2011, 26 years after the last hawker centre was built in Singapore in 1985. The first hawker centre in Bukit Panjang is scheduled for completion in 2015 and the rest are scheduled to be completed by 2017. Appointed a hawker centre public consultation panel to provide ideas for the management models, design, as well as how to achieve vibrancy and nurture social graciousness for the new hawker centres in November 2011, and accepted its recommendations on 10 May 2012. Overhauled hawker centre rental policies to stabilise rentals for stallholders. From 1 April 2012, full day subletting and stall assignments for new tenancies, as well as the setting of reserve rents when tendering out vacant stalls, were discontinued. Joint tenancies were also allowed to ease the burden of operating a stall. Set up the Department of Public Cleanliness on 1 April 2012 to integrate the cleaning of public areas and improve service standards and responsiveness to public feedback on cleanliness. Installed surveillance cameras at locations with persistent high-rise littering issues from September 2012. Reduced the number of public waste collection sectors from nine to six and aggregated waste collection fees, to be progressively implemented over several years from 2012. Adopted higher 2020 air quality targets for six major pollutants based on the World Health Organisation’s Air Quality Guidelines. Relaunched the tray return programme for all hawker centres on 11 November 2012. Extended the smoking ban to the common areas of residential premises, sheltered walkways/linkways, overhead bridges, outdoor hospital compounds, and a five-metre radius around bus shelters, from 15 January 2013. Commenced the development of Phase 2 of the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System, which is targeted for completion by 2022, on 12 March 2013. Announced the development of Phase 2 of the Semakau Landfill, which is scheduled for completion by the second quarter of 2015 and the building of a waste-to-energy incineration plant, on 12 March 2013. Launched the Centre for Climate Research Singapore, the world’s first centre for tropical climate and weather research, on 26 March 2013. Made energy management practices and reporting mandatory for large energy users in the industry and transport sectors from 22 April 2013 under the Energy Conservation Act. Stepped up efforts to deal with the dengue epidemic which started in 2013, including beefing up the number of dengue control officers, boosting the indoor application of insecticides, and distributing insect repellents to all households, on 11 June 2013. Launched a scheme to empower community volunteers to educate and encourage litterbugs against the act, which started in July 2013. Spearheaded the setting up of a haze monitoring system by ASEAN, with digitised land use maps and concession maps of fire-prone areas that cause transboundary haze, to be shared on a Government-to-Government basis. This was approved by the ASEAN leaders at the 23rd ASEAN Summit on 9 October 2013. Accelerated drainage improvement plans on 7 November 2013. PUB will be working on about 200 drainage improvement projects in 2014. Announced the implementation of a mandatory licensing scheme in 2014 for the cleaning industry to uplift the industry to deliver better service standards while ensuring better employment conditions for cleaners. Implemented an integrated air quality reporting index from 1 April 2014, with PM2.5 incorporated into the Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) as its sixth pollutant parameter. References

I have moved this entire list here. Wikipedia is not a CV or an indiscriminate collection of information. We go by WP:WEIGHT and proportion of coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Quite a lot of this is inherited coverage and routine news. Please discuss here before adding this back. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The material, though not well written, is well sourced. Why not leave it so others can improve it? Mostestargue (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Please help to review if the current 2nd paragraph introduction which described the education and career and REPEATED below can be reduced? MOS:INTRO--Reddotparty (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:PUFFERY

This entire article was like a CV. I have reverted to this version which is at least written well. Some of the hard work of other editors (including adding citations) have been unfortunately overwritten. I will try my best to incorporate these.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC) Jane Dawson Sorry for doing this, but the previous version is a much better written version to start from.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2023

Please fix the birth date in the infobox, as no source to verify the exact date of birth 219.78.190.134 (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2024

Individual is not a Christian, and the linked reference to this does not state the fact. Earllighthouse (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)