” is this Government saying that it is alright to laugh at other leaders in the world but not at our own?” Something I like…and it rings true…

how bad will singapore be on the press freedom ranking this year? i see a downward slide again

I have never failed to enjoy reading Sylvia Lim speeches. I strongly believed that her analytical views, during her NCMP terms, have caught many people (including PAP) attention.

She is capable of pointing out the double-standard practices of this government, their contradicting views and ideology during different timing, how messy these people are in creating policies and the shallowness of their thinking.

I have no doubt that, soon, all the remaining PAP newbies will stand up with simple speeches to hail Liu’s proposals without giving much thoughts of the issue because they were mostly overstretched in their job as stated in recent news.

The conclusion:- the law will be passed to “liberalised” pappy for their own political agenda and not to liberalise new media as we all have hoped.

It is a great disappointment indeed that after consultations and gathering feedback,the Govt did not managed to implement what the general public hope to see.
However,if section 33 is really removed,will the WP start producing political films?

It is sad that Ms. Lim was not elected.

We need opposition like her.

Whatever rules the PAP introduce is to help themselves.

May she should have asked more embarrassing questions to the PAP leaders?

At least we get to laugh at them on the net.

honestly, I don’t think things will be better political in the near future in Singapore as long as the old man lives or in charge.

Long live TOC.

“The proposed subsection 3(c) allows only the recording of events that are held in accordance with the law.” Does that mean many of the postings in STOMP will be illegal then? Great (I mean it).

To improve enforceability, I recommend the government outlaw the sale of mobiles with video recording features.

*snicker*

“There is no need to treat Singaporeans like children. ”

The problem with those self-appointed righteousness policemen is that they just refuse to understand that they are going against the natural / evolutionary developmental understanding of a more increasing discerning and educated workforce.

Should this then be deemed going against the “no animation” rule?

http://www.nemation.sg/overview.aspx

Instead of changeing the penal code to make physical assault a seizable offense for Lesser Mortals like us, MIW is far moe interested in tinkering the political film laws to ensure that they remain in power forever!!

Control is to government advantages. Go other countries and film it.

Tthey keep blowing their trumpet to the effect that they are the best capitalizing on the msm (the most important platform) while denying others of whatever improvised platform the latter have to make-do and creatively come out with.

Take a good look at TW media.
Every day , YES, EVERY single day even on holidays 365 days a year ,
24 hours a day, you can get TV coverage on political issues .

Case in point, Ah Bian case being broadcast ‘live’ every day. TW knows that if it is the truth, it is only healthy to inform the public what is going on. Even when things are being investigated. If people slander, they also get charged.
Its a fair game. The system works. So, there is regulation. They allow opposite sites to voice up. The people gets to hear everything any party wants to say. Their people are used to all these. TW is the USA of Asia, in my opinion.

while some facts may not sound nice, TW society choose to hear them. The good news and the bad news. Their leaders are held ACCOUNTABLE.

“To be fair, the Bill has its merits,…..”

Can the NCMP tell us what are these “merits” that she has found in this piece of draconian and feudalistic trash that the autocratic regime has bulldozed through its rubber stamp parliament?

“Doing nothing against the acts of suppression often allows the state of being suppressed (and associated existing errors and fallacies) to continue.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_dissent

“Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind.” – Bob Marley

Ms Sylvia Lim is a national treasure, refined and rare.
Sadly, she’s also a prime target to be “fixed”.

May Singapore protect underdogs like her.

I’d very much like to watch a film on Wong Kan Seng’s failure to capture and recapture Mas Selamat.

definite blockbuster in Asia…

“Alcatraz – Little Red Dot”
“Nowhere to be Found”
“The Fugitive”
“Toilet Flush”
“Dead or Alive”
“The Escapist”
“Man-hunt in the Lion City”
“Whitley”

I’m waiting for PAPs political film to touch on …handling politicals dissendents and the ISA …and touch abit on Lim Chin Siong. And how PAP came into power, show some of MM Lees public assembly speeches and how he spoke against the communist. A person who was a champion of free speech with no police clamping down on him.

Please don’t show us a bunch of people in white waving flags in the air, while airplanes fly pass, hdb up grading or show riots in other countries …i’ve seen enough of that kind of propaganda countless times, especially on every 9th Aug.

Can show us something historical and factual? Convince me to give you the vote.

Vote in more oppositions like Syvia, so our views are heard in parliament. We can’t trust Pap MPs because they are like mouse.

to #14, please do not expect an answer to ur question. It puzzled me y you even ask because whoever answer you may be doing a “balancing act” on a tight rope. The OB marker thingy.

There is definitely a reason why things are done the way it is done, the only issue here is whether is it done with a specific reason. Most importantly; is the reason(s) justifable?

Nominated Member of Parliament Siew Kum Hong voted against the amendments to the Films Act. But NCMP Sylvia Lim supported the bill which is a severe blow to citizen journalism.

“There is definitely a reason why things are done the way it is done, the only issue here is whether is it done with a specific reason. Most importantly; is the reason(s) justifable?”

Oh yeah ??? So what do you think. are the reson(s) (who knows what they are) justifiable ??? Of course, it is justifiable to them whowever they are to come out with it. But is it justifiable to you as far as you as a blogger is concerned especially when you have some comments to make – which may not be too flattering on those that you may wish to comment on.

If #21 is accurate that NCMP Sylvia Lim supported the amendment bill, what is there to say. Better expect more changes for the worse. Singaporeans are best to be the 3 monkeys – see not, hear not, speak not.

Correction:

So why did NOT Workers’ Party MP, Mr Low Thia Khiang and NCMP Sylvia Lim vote against the enactment of this law?

If I’m correct Sylvia Lim voted FOR, as mentioned by #21

21) seebeng on March 24th, 2009 4.41 pm

I hope what you say is not true.

i am a supporter of sylvia. if its true, i would be very traumatised by her decision and her thinking. she is one of the few hopes i have.

skilled migration is last resort.

I searched chris pattern and our very own mentor on youtube and found a terrible film about an interview with chris where he commented about mentor.
youtube @2 minute mark.

is this considered a political film?
so my question is clear. WHAT Exactly constitutes as a political film?
Who decides if any video is or is not political film? just by mentioning a politician’s name is political film?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2YvzIW88WQ

this the chris patten interview you talking abt?

Bear in mind that if Sylvia/SiewKH don’t vote for the changes then the status quo STAYS which is political videos is TOTALLY BANNED. Both choices suck but it’s easier to bend the laws without a total ban.

Erm, I have a few tough questions. not sure any of u can answer.

There is a process to pass this bill by way of voting in the parl is that correct?
Let me know if i sala.

assuming so, i like to know, what is the effect of the alternative parties on this aspect alone?

So what happens if these 3 vote AGAINST?
So what happens if these 3 vote FOR?

what happens when the next bill comes along? what will happen? I wonder very hard. i wonder like the lemon tree.

see my point? ??? huh ????

tomolo going u kno?

If bystanders filming of a demonstration, criminal arrest etc is not allowed, then instances of police abuse and excessive use of force to exercise arrest may go unnoticed and unreported in the mainstream or internet media, the public will never know these things are happening and the culprits will never face the law.

Good speech and well thought out.
Bravo Ms Lim.

” If not, is this Government saying that it is alright to laugh at other leaders in the world but not at our own?”

I think if we can show that we’ll cry for them, perhaps they’ll let us make the films.

what is the use all our ramblings here? what is the use? what is the use?
what little use does it serve? how many reading only?
maybe this negative voice should be deleted?

Speaking in parliament, Ms Sylvia Lim said: “To be fair, the Bill has its merits,…”

When the bill was finally put to vote Nominated Member of Parliament Siew Kum Hong voted against the amendments to the Films Act. But NCMP Sylvia Lim supported the bill, according to TODAY newspaper of 24 Mar, 2009.

Sylvia, she last time inspector wor. Very impress leh.
Wow, if she really supported the bill, i wonder how many not impress wor.
For me, I always say i impress wor. i very good wan. ;)

To #29 let me attempt a reply. A bill goes in for 3 readings. The first reading is placing it before parliament. The second reading is where you can debate on the bill but really, not very much if you have so many members in one party. You can also refer the bill to a special committee (which also does not make much difference). The third reading is a mere formality. Parliament can either pass the bill or disallow the passage of the bill usu by a simple majority of votes. If you have 3 votes out of 84 for the bill at the third reading, the bill goes into the dustbin. There is no such thing as passing one quarter of the bill as suggested by someone!

Mind you, lots of paper is used to pass bills. Think of the trees. I think we don’t need a parliament in Singapore. Save money.

Hi teo soh lung,

“If you have 3 votes out of 84 for the bill at the third reading, the bill goes into the dustbin. There is no such thing as passing one quarter of the bill as suggested by someone!”

Soly, i no very the good in english. Do you mean when there is 3 votes against, the bill goes into rubbish bin?

like this waste paper is that what you mean?

I think you mean if only 3 votes against, bill passed as proposed? Does this then mean majority = >=51% or majority = any number of ‘FOR’ votes where ‘Abstain’ votes are not counted?

Either case, please share with us, as long as the status quo, 3 alternative voice,
what happens with each new bill proposed? Can it ever be veto’d? To make it simpler, has any BILL from the ruling party ever been veto’d in history? I can assume there is but I wonder out of all the bills, how many , if any, was veto’d?

Hi Friends

The PAP has a morbid fear that a “scuffle in the National Stadium will lead to rioting” as testified by the strict crowd control during the Malaysia Cup football
heydays where except for the shouting of “Refree kayu”, no drums and banners were allowed into the stadium.

LKY’s motto is “always nip them in the bud” A Confucian leader is intolerant of
poking fun at your betters/elders – “Boh tuah, boh suay”.

Up to the 80s, the Chinese Sporean father, particularly the less English educated, becomes restraint in his feelings “don’t give face” as soon as his children reached their mid-teens.

Culturally, the Chinese still remain a “unforgiving father” and this rigid attitude estranged hundreds of Chinese Sporean families. Dozens of fathers have disowned their children and adamantly refused to relent even when his children repent and seek forgiveness.

Our Asean neighbours continual top-turviness do frighten the PAP whom do not acknowledge that constructive chaos can be instructive. Their continual refrain is “You will frighten foreign investors away. Tourists will shun our Lion City. Your property and the Sing dollar will fall in value. That will be the end of Spore” which were swallowed wholesale by mostly Chinese Sporeans cause had Spore’s population been at least half non-Chinese, the PAP’s talking-cock will be rubbished off.

My take is most Chinese Sporeans above their mid40s have been emasculated by the PAP.

To #37 If 3 out of 84 MPs want to have the Films Act amended and 81 opposed it being amended, then the bill goes into the bin i.e. not passed. This will not happen because PAP have excessive majority in parliament. Any bill introduced by the PAP will go through, whether debated or not.

The role of the opposition is tough but when the opposition speak against the bill, then they must live up to their speech i.e. vote against the bill or at the very least, Abstain. They cannot say one thing and do another. Hope this is clear.