Knowledge

Template:Did you know nominations/Public Prosecutor v. Taw Cheng Kong

Source 📝

210: 213:
New enough, long enough, well cited, good (though kinda technical) prose, no apparent neutrality problems. Hook is long enough, interesting, and cited with an inline citation which I accept in good faith. I think this is good to go.
236: 36: 120: 40: 129: 98: 17: 44: 73: 47:), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page. 106: 160: 89: 132:(now deleted) and moved to the article namespace on 23 October 2011. The hook is referenced by footnote 80. 176: 156: 144: 172: 140: 192: 184: 164: 148: 219: 168: 152: 29:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below.
188: 180: 209: 230: 215: 35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
57: 93: 105:
was the only decision where a statutory provision had been struck down as
78: 8: 237:Passed DYK nominations from October 2011 7: 65:Public Prosecutor v. Taw Cheng Kong 24: 195:) at 18:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC) 18:Template:Did you know nominations 208: 222:) 23:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC) 1: 128:: Article was worked on in a 60:01:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC) 45:Knowledge talk:Did you know 37:this nomination's talk page 253: 88:... that as of 2009 the 32:Please do not modify it. 41:the article's talk page 139:Created/expanded by 96:'s judgment in the 196: 187:). Nominated by 244: 212: 138: 107:unconstitutional 52:The result was: 34: 252: 251: 247: 246: 245: 243: 242: 241: 227: 226: 225: 85: 83: 79:Article history 67: 61: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 250: 248: 240: 239: 229: 228: 224: 223: 205: 204: 203: 202: 157:Gordon.li.2008 136: 135: 134: 133: 123: 111: 110: 100:Taw Cheng Kong 82: 81: 76: 74:Back to T:TDYK 70: 68: 66: 63: 50: 49: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 249: 238: 235: 234: 232: 221: 217: 211: 207: 206: 201: 200: 199: 198: 197: 194: 190: 186: 182: 178: 174: 170: 166: 162: 158: 154: 150: 146: 142: 131: 127: 124: 122: 118: 115: 114: 113: 112: 108: 104: 103: 101: 95: 91: 87: 86: 80: 77: 75: 72: 71: 64: 62: 59: 55: 48: 46: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 173:Ryan.su.2009 137: 125: 116: 99: 97: 53: 51: 31: 28: 141:Amanda.thng 121:Rip Jordan 90:High Court 189:Smuconlaw 181:Smuconlaw 94:Singapore 231:Category 216:Norstrem 165:Jnraptor 149:Devathas 117:Reviewed 54:promoted 179:), and 130:sandbox 126:Comment 58:Panyd 16:< 220:talk 193:talk 185:talk 177:talk 169:talk 161:talk 153:talk 145:talk 102:case 171:), 163:), 155:), 147:), 92:of 56:by 43:or 233:: 119:: 69:( 39:, 218:( 191:( 183:( 175:( 167:( 159:( 151:( 143:( 109:? 84:)

Index

Template:Did you know nominations
this nomination's talk page
the article's talk page
Knowledge talk:Did you know
Panyd
Back to T:TDYK
Article history
High Court
Singapore
Taw Cheng Kong case
unconstitutional
Rip Jordan
sandbox
Amanda.thng
talk
Devathas
talk
Gordon.li.2008
talk
Jnraptor
talk
Ryan.su.2009
talk
Smuconlaw
talk
Smuconlaw
talk

Norstrem
talk

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.