Talk:Fettering of discretion in Singapore administrative law/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 10:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC) I'll be doing this review over the next few days. I'll add comments here as I go through the article.

• The picture of a man in fetters is cute but I don't think is really appropriate. I wouldn't fail the article for leaving this in; it's just a comment.
• The reference to UK law in the lead seems odd, because it's not till you get to the body of the article that it is explained that English law has been influential in the development of Singaporean law. I think a very brief parenthetical mention in the lead would help. It might also be useful to mention in the body (as the article on Singapore administrative law does) that the reason for the influence is that Singapore inherited English law at independence.
• Is the first paragraph of the introduction a general statement about all courts in all countries, or is it specific to Singapore? If the former, I'd suggest changing "the courts" to just "courts", and changing "Parliament" to a more generic term; if the latter, I would mention Singapore to make it clear that that's the context.
  •  Fixed: I've rephrased this. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• "However, a contractual fetter on discretion has been established in English law to be a separate ground of review, but this has yet to be recognized by the Singapore courts": I'm not clear what this means -- can you clarify? What would be an example of a contractual fetter on discretion? Is there a possible link target for that phrase? In addition, it needs a little copyedit -- you don't need both "However" and "but". Postscript: I think I understand the intent of the sentence now, but it's still a little ugly the way it's written. How about resequencing the paragraph like so: "It has been observed that in Singapore administrative law, "extensive reference is made to the landmark English cases"; and in particular English administrative law has largely influenced the adoption of the doctrine of fettering of discretion in Singapore. One exception is that although a contractual fetter on discretion has been established in English law to be a separate ground of review, this has yet to be recognized by the Singapore courts."

  You did not strike this. Does that mean you are not satisfied with the new sentences? --Hildanknight (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Has this been rephrased already? The text in the article now matches the text above. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, I did said rephrasing. --Hildanknight (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, it's fine now; I've struck that part of my comment. However, I would still like to understand what a "contractual fetter on discretion" might be -- perhaps an example could be given, to help out lay readers? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
        •  Fixed. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• "This was established by obiter dicta": I'm no legal expert, but I was surprised to see a definite term like "established" used in connection with "obiter dicta". I thought obiter dicta remarks were informative and referenceable in arguments, but could not be regarding as setting precedents. Is that not the case?
• "Ellis v. Dubowski (1921)' stands for the principle that there can be no delegation of authority to an absolute body from which no right of appeal exists": what does "stands for the principle" mean here?
  •  Fixed: I've rephrased this. Hope it's clearer now. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• "Under section 35 of the Interpretation Act, if written law confers power on a minister to, among other things, give a direction, issue an order, authorize something to be done, or exercise any other power, unless the law otherwise provides it is sufficient for the exercise of the power to be signified under the hand of the permanent secretary to the ministry which the minister is responsible for, or of any public officer authorized in writing by the minister": two questions. First, I think "among other things" and "any other power" are redundant; perhaps strike "among other things". Second, what does "signified under the hand of" mean? It appears to be a technical term; I would guess it means "done under the signature of", but thought I should check. Also, is there any reason that the citation for this sentence is not at the end? The bulk of the sentence is uncited as it stands, though I would guess the citation partway through covers it.

  The citation at the start of the sentence covers the entire sentence. --Hildanknight (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  I've moved the cite in line with this comment and struck that subpoint above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  • "Among other things" was added because the section in question actually states more. The section also uses the term "signified under the hand of", so though I agree it probably means "done under the signature of" I wonder if it's a good idea to change it. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  Both the reviewer and I assumed that "signified under the hand of" is a legal term that you would be familiar with. It should certainly be changed to a more accessible phrase. --Hildanknight (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  I agree; I don't think it conveys much to an average reader. With regard to the first point, the reason I think "among other things" is redundant is that the second half of that sentence refers to the exercise of a minister's powers, so "any other power" seems to include anything that might be relevant that is referred to by "among other things". If "among other things" refers to material in the source that has no relevance to the second half of the sentence, I think it can be dropped; if it refers to relevant material that is not a power of the minister, then I think the sentence is obscure. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  I have replaced both instances of "signified under the hand of" with "done under the signature of", as well as removed both "among other things" and "or exercise any other power". --Hildanknight (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks; that fixes it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• "fettering of discretion though rigid adherence to a policy": presumably a typo -- shouldn't it be "through"?

-- That's everything I can see. I'll place this on hold and wait for your responses. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Everything is fixed; I'm passing this as GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)