Andrew Loh
Senior Minister of State (Information, Communication and the Arts) Lui Tuck Yew defended the Government’s amendments to the Films Act stoutly. He even described the changes as “significant liberalisation and change, and it will widen the space for political discourse”.
But one wonders if Minister Lui was confused by one aspect of the change – that of a “blackout period” during electioneering. He cited this example to show that the government was not tightening its grip but in fact was loosening it, or liberalizing the rules.
Minister Lui said in Parliament:
Political parties and their election candidates will be able to use films allowed under the amended Films Act during an election period. This goes beyond the recommendation of AIMS, which had in fact recommended that there be a blackout period for party political films during an election. (Emphasis mine. Source.)
However, when The Online Citizen (TOC) reported in December 2008 that AIMs had indeed recommended such a limitation, AIMs wrote to TOC to clarify that it was, in fact, not recommending a “blackout period”.
AIMs said in its email:
“In AIMS’ finalised recommendations from page 74, we had recommended that Section 33 of the Films Act be repealed in stages. There was no mention of any blackout period or any conditions attached to this ultimate goal of a total repeal.” (See here.)
In its clarification, AIMs explained that the initial recommendation of a “blackout period” was made in its consultation paper. In its final recommendations to the government, however, AIMs did not propose such a limitation but that it recommended that Section 33 of the Films Act be repealed in stages.
One therefore wonders if Minister Lui, in citing the example of the “blackout period” as an example of the government’s liberalization of the rules, was reading the wrong paper or was confused by the two. Did he read the consultation paper or the paper with the final recommendations?
Further to this, one wonders if the Minister had been properly apprised of the various feedback given to it before it went ahead and made the changes to the Films Act. One can’t go “beyond” what was not recommended. Right?
One thing is for sure, there is now a deeper reluctance, on the part of some who were canvassed for their views in the year-long feedback process handled by AIMs, to participate in any future ones. For it seems that not only is the government confused by what was recommended, it is also bent on bull-dozing new legislations through.
Indeed, feedback to the government has been dealt a severe blow – ironically, by the government itself. And that, perhaps, is a more serious consequence than what the changes to the Films Act would bring.
——
Picture from My Sketchbook.
—–
No…he is not confused…like the rest of the clones…he’s just a piece of blockhead!
no of course he was not confused…..how can a minister or in this case, the minister of state be confused? our country will be in trouble if any of the talented elites were confussd.
It sound like feedbacks were being betrayed and Liu was too hasty to deal with lesser mortal. Who dare to continue giving feedback in future when there is lack of sincerity from the govt.
well, what can i say? as long as the people accepts.
the koo koo must stop.
Please lah..Singaporeans simply dun care about this kinda stuff one lah..
“Political parties and their election candidates will be able to use films …” let us be truthful, if not for youtube the PAP government would still ban the use of films.
The PAP government has no control over the internet and they have to face up to the new challenges posed by the internet.
Now that we know the PAP machinery lies to the public there is only one effective way for them to take note, vote more opposition MPs into parliament.
Expecting the RA to be directly promoted to full Minister soon although he cannot lord over Youtube. But his first major job is done.
Just curious why NCMP Sylvia Lim from the WP voted for this repressive bill disguised as political liberalisation, according to the report in Today on 24 March
What is the problem TOC ? you participated in the process and after its all done deal, you now ask is he confused? ???
So you want them to ask nothing at all and just let it be because the participated. Well done.
“What is the problem TOC ? you participated in the process and after its all done deal, you now ask is he confused? ???”
what participation ? so many participants hoh . at the end, the judge will give his / her judgement ?? you don’t like it, you appeal lo ?? free one, is it.
This what you may also say about the whole election process. most of us also participated in the election process right and we are also confused about the change of rules. single seat – to GRC 3 members – to GRC 4 members – GRC 5 members – GRC 6 members – ?????
http://www.parliament.gov.sg/AboutUs/Org-MP-Cons.htm
the list is slowly getting longer and longer.
PAP = NATO (No Action Talk Only)
I doubt they were confused. They deliberately picked out what was beneficial to them. They wouldn’t care for the fact that the blackout was only mentioned in the consultation paper and not the final recommendations. But then, neither would the majority of Singaporeans. Life goes on as long as there is food and shopping.
My opinion that Singapore road very much congested during peak hours as more citizen ops to buy cars as the present public transportation system is still not efficient. To encourage more people to abundance their cars and use public transport. one way is to waive th ERP charges to Taxis as taxis are also consider as public transport. During peak hours passengers already have to bear the 35% peak hours surcharge and plus the ERP charges it really burnt a holes in their pocket. Also during peak hours in the CBD areas taxi stand they are long queue of passengers than available taxi. Taxis will only go the CBD to pick up passenger provided they have passenger onboard going into the CBD areas otherwise they might not want to enter CBD empty cab to pick up passengers. Its a win win situation if the Ministry of Transport consider my proposal to waive the ERP charge for taxis. Firstly the passengers will not end up waiting too long for taxis and the cabbies can improve in their income