“These amendments will allow much leeway for political parties and election candidates as well as individuals to produce party political films. At the same time, this will allow for political debate in Singapore to remain serious and robust.
“We should not prevent people from recording video clips of political events held in accordance with the law or from making factual documentary videos of political issues and events. But we must continue to have limits against undesirable political materials, for example, fictionalised accounts or political commercials, even though it may not be possible to enforce these limits completely.
“Films with animation and dramatisation and distort what is real or factual will be disallowed, as the intent of the amendments is to ensure that these films do not undermine the seriousness of political debate.”
Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts, Lui Tuck Yew in Parliament, on amendments to the Films Act.
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
“We should not prevent people from recording video clips of political events held in accordance with the law or from making factual documentary videos of political issues and events.”
The problem is- who decides what’s “factual”? The courts? We know how that works.
“Films with animation and dramatisation and distort what is real or factual will be disallowed, as the intent of the amendments is to ensure that these films do not undermine the seriousness of political debate.”
Satire and analogy are often the best ways to illuminate ridiculous policies. In any case, I hope they can save the futility of “debate” on this topic in parliament and devote their time to real issues like meeting the changing economic landscape.
In short- PAP will make the law water tight. Even if it doesn’t and “distorted” films are made, the courts will interpret the law and make legislation water-tight regardless.
Goodness, these demonstrations of effort in freeing political space are just a waste of time.
[But we must continue to have limits against undesirable political materials] – If we measured by democratic yardstick, PAP’s monopolistic newspaper, radio and TV always producing undesirable political materials ever since.
who determines what is ‘undesirable’ ?
I think this is the most important word in the so-called change.
I don’t understand why PAP so concerned about films, video clips etc. Or what the internet says.
They should know that when it comes to the vote, the majority people will be VERY, VERY SERIOUS. They don’t play play. They will vote PAP!. Everytime for the past 40 years.
So statistically speaking, why should the next one be different?
3) stillvotePAP on March 23rd, 2009 7.09 pm
While I do not totally not disagree with you,
you have a point there. Its quite true really.
I guess no one wants change.
PAP should not worry so much if they have been honest in their doings.