Andrew Loh / with contribution from Farquhar
The changes to the Films Act, announced yesterday by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), is a vintage example of PAP doublespeak. In introducing the amendments Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts, Rear Admiral (NS) Lui Tuck Yew, called it “a significant step” to “liberalise and expand the space for political discourse”. What it actually does is to codify rules where there were previously none, impose restrictions on existing laws to ensure government control over content and introduce enough ambiguity to deter common use of the medium of film in political discourse.
It also undermines the very spirit of the PAP’s promises to liberalise political discourse. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in 2004 that Singaporeans should “feel free to express diverse views” and to have the “confidence to engage in robust debate”. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said in 2003 that more political space was needed as “it will no longer make sense for the Government to always control and regulate every activity”. In fact, it was Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew himself who set the tone for loosening up rules on political films when commenting on the ban on Martyn See’s 2005 film “Singapore Rebel” about opposition politician Chee Soon Juan:
“Well, if you had asked me, I would have said, to hell with it. But the censor, the enforcer, he will continue until he is told the law has changed. And it will change.” (Source)
Four years on, however, Mr Lee’s promises have instead led nowhere. What seems to have changed in the intervening period is the government’s loss of appetite for liberalization after its less then overwhelming victory in the 2006 general elections. The opposition made inroads in eroding the government-controlled mainstream media’s monopoly over campaign coverage through films released over the Internet, which might have contributed to the significant protest vote against the incumbents. Subsequently, the tenacious Dr Chee also took advantage of the new medium to release periodic political messages.
But it is genuinely difficult to see how the proposed amendments will improve things. Politicians, activists and bloggers, currently working in the grey and unregulated area defined by the present Films Act, have so far had an admirable track record in producing videos that are relatively objective if critical of the government. The avoidance of sensitive racial or religious issues – always the government’s prime reason for keeping a tight rein over free speech – in these films is testament to the success of this self-regulating environment.
Such films are hardly the histrionic, incendiary or blatantly partisan pieces that the government purports to want to regulate: explaining the motivations behind his Bill, RAdm Lui claimed that Singapore’s democracy would be “debased” if it was “reduced to sleek commercials, clever editing, sharp sound bites and political spin”. Perhaps he is neglecting the fact that it was the PAP who tried (somewhat hysterically) to turn the 2006 elections into a single-issue referendum over an opposition candidate’s forgetfulness about filling in a form.
A law of ambiguity
What the amendments will probably do is to provide the government’s legal authority to ensure that films are “politically correct”. Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong and Opposition Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim have also pointed out that there is a great deal of ambiguity in the proposed amendments, which is likely to deter most folk from using film for political expression or even trying to capture events on film. Even PAP MP Penny Low had expressed worry that the Bill contained “a catch-all clause to contain even the film producer, the videographer and free speech” and questioned whether it was “a step backwards to contain certain political parties”.
One is led to the conclusion that the government seems driven by short-term politicking. That is deeply unfortunate, because its Bill is likely to have far-reaching longer-term effects on society. The restrictions would have an impact on how future generations perceive our recorded political history. And this is what truly matters in this debate about the amendments to the Films Act – everyone has a role to play in keeping a collective record of what takes place in Singapore.
Our history is made up of legal and illegal events, of the beautiful and the ugly, the peaceful and the not-so-peaceful. Our political history is not the exclusive and privileged domain of what the PAP has defined it to be, to be filled only with tales of the PAP’s deeds and its inevitable political spin. The history of Singapore belongs to its people and they are the ones who have a right to keep records of it – in whatever form it takes.
Preserving history or abiding a ridiculous law?
What does the present Bill mean for the individual Singaporean? I am aghast, to say the least, that such a piece of ridiculous legislation could even be contemplated. But now that it has become law, what does one do? Abide by it? Or ignore it and be willing to accept the punishment? Is abiding this particular law more important than preserving a part of our history?
I, like many others, am just an ordinary Singaporean. When I record an event, including illegal protests, I do not have intentions to show up the evils of the government at the back of my mind. That would be such a tiring thing to do. No, my intention is to preserve what happens and keep a record of it for Singaporeans not yet born. For this is how they will know what took place years ago and how their forebears created Singapore, whether through obeisance or not.
Perhaps, we can all take heart that even within the government, at least one minister had, in the past, ignored rules. In a speech on 25 January 2005, to students at a youth and media conference, Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam urged students to “make a difference”. Referring to himself, he said:
“And I did something about it, with friends, with groups of people, writing articles, selling them, sometimes surreptitiously..”
Going further, he “assured the more than 1,000 youths present that nothing will happen even if one breaches an OB marker. One simply learns to steel oneself and be more adroit.” Indeed, he went on to say, “One does not develop a conviction and commitment to a society without first questioning and pushing the boundaries.”
Finally, Mr Tharman “warned that social and political apathy among the young posed long-term risks to community cohesion. (link)
When a government legislates not against the person conducting an illegal activity but against the one witnessing it, and does so for clearly political purposes, one should know that the government has stepped beyond its moral responsibilities of safeguarding society and has abused its conferred privilege to enact laws.
Indeed, the Films Act amendments show that the government has overstepped the OB markers which society has prescribed for it and is an affront to the preservation of Singapore’s recorded history.
———
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Very selfish of them to do this sorts of things. However, they have been doing it over the years and get away with it due to the controlled media and apathy of Singaporeans. Now Singaporeans must make a determine effort to hold them to account. The only leverage they have over the ruling pap is at the ballot box.
You might want to consider removing that picture. I think there is a strict law on the usage of Singapore flag.
PAP is determined to isolate Singaporeans to take up ownership of their national identity. Young people, emigrate and leave this God-forsaken little red dot before PAP destroyed it.
“Our history is made up of legal and illegal events, of the beautiful and the ugly, the peaceful and the not-so-peaceful. Our political history is not the exclusive and privileged domain of what the PAP has defined it to be, to be filled only with tales of the PAP’s deeds and its inevitable political spin. The history of Singapore belongs to its people and they are the ones who have a right to keep records of it – in whatever form it takes.”
Damn right. A nation is only a hotel, if it is flawlessly antiseptic. A home has mess on the floor, the familiar scents of cooking, the slightly yellowed ceiling and the blaring of the television. These are not things to be organised and sanitized.
If one wishes a sanitized environment, go live in a laboratory.
“I think there is a strict law on the usage of Singapore flag.”
We should give our utmost respect to the spirit behind the sanctity of what the flag truly represents rather than just a piece of flag per se.
Some things are symbolic in nature where you can treat them with noisy emotional respect or alternatively you may show some false sense of pretentious seriousness – only your own heart will know.
The PA Govt is supposed to look after our welfare & interests. Instead they don’t seem to give a damn to our rights as guaranteed under our Constitution.
This is really too much ! We are really worse than those communist countries.
“When a government legislates not against the person conducting an illegal activity but against the one witnessing it, and does so for clearly political purposes, one should know that the government has stepped beyond its moral responsibilities of safeguarding society and has abused its conferred privilege to enact laws.”
Agree. That’s why I believe change is imperative.
In SIN,
it is sometimes difficult to tell if
the symbols are symbolic or shambolic.
The brain of LKY must be diseased. He created a dictatorial systems of tightening control with the first opportunity provided by every form of opposition to his rule. Look upon the system as his fortress, his cadres as guards over the exits and entrances of his fortress. His tightening of control will means more guarded exits and entrances to make it impossible for any other parties to share the domain of his fortress, mind you not Singaporean fortress but the PAPian fortress. In a way you could say that the PAP is devouring bit by bit the Singaporean property and asset including local talents. In the fortress lives a dictatorial emperor who is above the President. Or rather a tyrannt in every way. or similar to Hitler while the tools of oppression, suppression and repression is the system exerting more and more stresses on the Singaporean population at large till birth rate falls, suicide rate rises, talents migrated, etc…. all can be said of the evil policies of the systems while the builder enjoy huge income.
TOC has done a well argued piece again.
This begs the question why our MSM are all silent and not questioning the ruling party on such an important national issue.
The MSM is really come down to an exceedingly low level of gutter journalism. What is the purpose of being a journalist who is so scared to defend the freedom of speech and expression?
Don’t diss communist countries! :)
I have long decided who gets my vote, that is if I get a chance to vote and if elections will still be held in the future. I no longer feel angry at the things they do. I am just amused at the level they will sink too and I can feel the fear in them. I know I cannot do much but there are many within my circle who do not realise or understand what is happening. I make it a point to engage them and explain how we the people have surrendered our power. I tell the lower income who are struggling how much their part time MP and Ministers are paid. I tell them how much we have lost. I ask them if they know how much money we have in our reserves. I tell them even our former President Ong was not given the answer. I tell them all those things which are never mentioned in our papers, TV or radio. I tell them about accountability and responsibility. I tell them about Obama, who earns 5 times less than our Minister and yets takes ownership and dares to say I screwed up and I am responsible as your President. I tell them to think before they vote the next time. If I can get to one person, I have done right.
PAP elites have been enjoying life all these years from their obscenely fat salaries that they have become paranoid, to the extent of making sure anything that may provide an opportunity of putting them in a less than favourable light must be, wherever possible, pre-empted or stamped out.
Lets accept the decision and move on like we always have.
afterall, the People gave them the power to do what they do.
And they did.
they come up a law and its passed. The People decided 3 is sufficient in parl.
3 vs 80.
its as simple as that.
Its really the People.
What Lee did should not surprise anyone. His insecurity and disgust towards anyone who is critical of his reign is clearly manifested by this legislation. But don’t think he’ll stop at that. He simply thinks that by selling politics to the people with style rather than substance, he’ll be able to keep power n people will bow down to him in servitude.
“Repression, Sir is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love – it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they’re conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict.” – Lee Kuan Yew as an opposition PAP member speaking to David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly, Debates, 4 October 1956
“do you really love your country and what the flag truly represents”
Yes, some things are symbols but do we have to show idiotic rigid respect to mere symbols?
I say, loosen up!
Thanks, Andrew! Your last 2 paragraphs sum it all.
12) DP on March 24th, 2009 8.41 pm
Agree. We are more effective than the official (PA, PAP) grassroots. We believe in what we say.
Good piece Andrew. Its really stupid to ban someone from watching or even filming something illegal. Outrageous. So much for a democratic country when we are not even allowed to document an expression of another person in our society, be it legal or illegal, it is a part of our heritage, and it is our right to witness and document it. They don’t treat us with any respect. Who are they to tell us that we cannot judge between the good and the bad. It is precisely them who cannot judge the liberal from the restrictions that they ‘liberalized’ the films act. What are they trying to hide?What are they trying to avoid?What are they afraid of? This is not an act to protect the people, but an act against the rights of the people.
Y’know, honestly, I have this naggin feelin that during election, we will see the opposition party’s films being banned for being too ‘dramatic’ or ‘distorted’ whereas we will see PAP’s ‘factual’ and ‘objective’ films about how good and popular the PM is on the TV…do they have to stoop so low? They dont see the long term damage that they are doing.
Election is probably coming, that is why they are in urgent need to tighten the already tight liberarlisation law so that PAP can manage its image well during election campaigning and BUY VOTES.
Liu and the other higher mortal are afraid of losing their iron rice bowl in the coming election. Thus they need a new law, to protect them from losing battle, regardless of moving our society backyard.
you know what. We don’t really have to complain, because with the new PO bill, basically, I think the government will do a splendid job of imprisoning a would-be protester in their house. So why are we worried that we are not allowed to film an illegal event when…the even won’t even be able to take place now…right?
WAKE UP GOVERNMENT>>>WAKE UP…
YES what you hear on the internet is not credible and that diversity is only encouraged when all the views are diverse ways that your party has succeeded.
Are you even listening to your people?
A likely avenue for double standards. The PAP dogs will soon again visit Political Rallies and use their camcorders to record speeches, and also the faces of attendees.
Sure one la.
What can we do ?
1. Launch a petition amongst citizens – x signatures against this to show them we don’t want this law? How many signatures can we get? Will they change this law even if there are x number of signatures?
2. If No.1 is not feasible – only through the ballot box.
Otherwise, seriously, this place is doomed. Citizens have no more rights or voice.
This law is so ambiguous you can turn around in an A380 in it and still serve cocktails without spilling.
[#24 The SS]
“If No.1 is not feasible – only through the ballot box”
Yes, it appears to be the avenue that would remain eventually.
So cast your vote wisely. And if you can influence your family members/friends, that would be a huge plus.
People have to realise that the terms “consultative government” or “inclusive society” are nothing but fancy terms coined to mean nothing. There has been so many major decisions made that is affecting not only our lives but will have severe impact on the future generation. A consultative government would have listened to the voice of the people and would at the least called for a national referendum. Have we had any?. Yes we are consulted if we want upgrading, but are we when laws which restrict our basic freedom are enacted. Every single move made by the government has basically three purpose. First the ensure that they stay in power at all cost. Second to ensure that the top 20-30 percent are well taken care of (which includes themselves). And finally, that the people stay repressed. The only way to have a “consultative government” and a “inclusive society” is to have strong opposition. The government will have to be consultative for not only does it need the support of the opposition to enact laws but also the support of the people. There would have to be inclusive because otherwise people will exclude them from the government. That is the reality. Well the ruling party can talk about having the best candidates and the best minds but lets not forget that when they were the opposition, except for the orginal old guards, many did not last the long. We need to take a chance with the opposition or for that matter any party. If they do not perform, we should kick them out and make sure that they do not enter through the back door as many in the present government have done so. Lets the MPs be the true people’c choice and only the will they consult the people who put them in power the first. The people should be the king makers and not a board from a political party.
such a stupid law means we just need more opposition in parliament. too bad all we get are walkovers.
I bet if you put up a mongrel dog vs a pap candidate these days, you will get votes for the dog.
Hypothetically speaking… one day, I see politically motivated civil unrest on the streets and it involves thousands of people. It is history in the making but if I shoot it and post it on the web, I will be breaking the law?
If CNN or BBC or even CNA shoots it and makes it a breaking news item, they be breaking the law too?
How then are we different from the Burmese, who had to secretly shoot and upload pictures of the monks protesting on the streets, risking arrest for doing so? With such rules how is our media different from N Korea’s, which only lets you hear “only the good stuff” about the exploits of the perpetual ruling party and its great/dear leader?
As an ordinary citizen (i.e. non partisan), I am highly disappointed that a self-touted first-class government (who also sees fit to remunerate itself as such) has to enact sweeping and ambiguous laws just to deal with a couple of dissenting voices. Furthermore It is not even as-if these figures command wide support of the majority who are conservative men-on-the-street.
It is strange that the government hasn’t the open-mindedness or the maturity to accept that no matter how successful they are (or think they are), when asking for genuine feedback, there will always be one or two detractors who see it from the opposite point of view. What were they expecting? Citizens lining along the streets, standing at attention and clapping their hands in unison?
And I am highly disturbed that such laws are being passed seemingly at the snap of the fingers without considering the wider implications on our nation. As a Singaporean I cannot in good conscience fathom how such laws can be for the greater good of the country.
It is highly ironic that the government is always preaching to the people to adapt and upgrade their skills to stay relevant in increasingly difficult times. But the government itself seems doing things with the same approach year after year even while circumstances have totally changed – here are tactics not unlike those used to deal with “enemies of the state” circa 1965.
But who really is the “enemy”?
“17) Chained on March 24th, 2009 10.54 pm
You have already answered it yourselves my friend – the words “idiotic rigid respect”. Symbols are static however we give lives to it. And yes, we need to lossen up.
Sometimes, the problem does not lie with you and me but in some other groups who may feel insecure and need to puff up their chests to let you know loudly that everything is under control.
It is just like a bubble and you should know what will happen when a bubble gets too big.
“Hypothetically speaking… one day, I see politically motivated civil unrest on the streets and it involves thousands of people. It is history in the making but if I shoot it and post it on the web, I will be breaking the law?”
You should not give too much attention to this thingy. Even their own scholars will find it hard to gel the different conflicting logics of this sh**. Sometimes, it is quite fun to see our anoited ones behaving in such childish immature manner. Mer-liar, where areeeeeee you. Mer-liar, Mer-liarrrrrrr are you arounnnnnnnnd.
All the while we thought that the people is afraid of the Govt.
Through this moronic law, we realise that it is the PAP Govt
that is afraid of the people, especially our voices.
Why should we feel surprised by this latest near “Gag Order”? It is a given and if people who wished to remain apathetic, ignorant and naive in their thinking, no amount of censorship lifting will help to change their mindset unless they have been transform by external elements beyod their control (like this Financial Tsunami) and that they are seriously affected and awoke from their deep sleep. Only insecure mindset and people who live like a well-frog worries about these silly things and will raise both their hand and feet in support (walk-over representation). History will make its mark someday to re-capture these events. Perhaps, 20~30 years from now. Future historians and generations will have plenty of commical information for tea gathering. You know the “Long-Term” thingy?
Likewise, even with this censorship in place there is no stopping from captured images of political controversy to surface in the internet. Unless you have a total ban on Internet usage. So, it is indeed a silly proposition to try to pretend to be liberal where in fact they are reinforcing their original stands in the guise of “UNCHALLENGED” legislation to ensure that they are “conservatively correct”. This tactic probably will work in the older days (I am one of the many older, naive Singaporeans who had only voted once in more than 5 decades) where the only source of news are controlled. It will be viewed as just another wayang for the non-apathetic Singaporeans.
The more educated Singaporeans are, the harder it is for the government to exercise full censorship. Whatever law is being enforced, you cannot mandate a person’s thinking nor can you mandate his will to spread the words legally. We are not dumb neither are we deaf. (apathetic Singaporeans are exception though). Time will come and it is indeed the best attesting element seemingly fitting for this Tiny Red Dot. That makes me wonder, whatif Hollywood decided to make a film for public consumption and the story line is based largely on you know what….that will be pretty interesting (but may be, the producer may think it is an entirely waste on resources to film about a Tiny Red Dot where there are more exciting materials to choose from.
My final advice to people at large, just ignore this episode. It is not worth your time to further exploration for something that we already knew what the out-come would be regardless of “tweak” public discourse for a selected few.
Another classic example of stifling of political dissent by the ruling elites, The truth us with the advent of media technology, they are scare death about losing control over diseenting voices being aired outside of their controlled media.
Singaporeans have to re-learn the bitter lesson of not supporting a strong opposition. This is what will continue to happen if Singaporeans remain politically apathetic, the “Tida Apa” attitude and let them decide as long as we have “lobangs” to make money and be rich.
Your children and your children’s children will suffer because you do not care.
You know Andrew,
In one country not too long ago, they shoot reporters, to prevent its ugly side from being exposed to the world, but still the world got to see a lot of the misdeeds and brutality.
Would they take to beating up protesters and those reporting with audio-visual equipment next?
There are many ways to skin a cat with technology the way it is.
A German Philosopher:
First, they burn books.
Next, they will burn human beings.
35) George on March 25th, 2009 4.50 pm
And that is how whole society regresses and rots away at the expense of all but a few (bigots) who choose to believe the “whole world” is wrong excepting themselves.
our thoughts are free
Good artical.
thanks , I enjoyed reading it
:)