mollymeek (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} mollymeek) wrote,@ 2008-12-03 19:44:00 |
|
The Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media (Aims) has recommended that the ban on party political films be banned. How nice! Singapore is becoming more open, as always. Even though the wise Gahmen has yet to make a decision whether to follow the recommendation, I think one might expect a change to the law on party political films. However, according to the ST, "party political films still have to clear one hurdle before they can be screened. An independent panel of experts will first have to decide if the film has set our to mislead the public." This is all very good, because you know that the independent panel will be independent and not pro-PAP, pro-WP or pro-SDP. The panel will be made up of people who have escaped unscathed despite being exposed to years of propaganda and social engineering.
One could compare its independence to that of the judiciary.
Though I wonder if we would be charged for Contempt of Panel or something if we question their independence.
The recommendation is for the ban to be repealed in phases, with the panel coming in during the transitory phase, so perhaps the whole idea is that, eventually, there would be no more panel. Again, we still don't know if the Gahmen would take up this recommendation.
I wonder what the "experts" would be experts in though, given that there isn't a university offering a doctorate in Deciding Whether a Film is Acceptable. So who would eventually decide who is an expert in whatever expertise it is supposed to be. Would Molly be an expert, given her illustrious history of exposing works of propaganda as works of propaganda. Oh no, of course not. If Molly joins the panel of experts, she would dig out lots of films about the PAP and ban them because they mislead the public. She's such an evil, anti-establishment kitten.
Maybe . . . we should petition for all articles in the local papers such as the ST to be approved by independent experts too, just to ensure that they are not out to mislead the public into supporting the PAP.
Or maybe we should also repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code in stages. During the transitory phase, there should be a panel of sex experts to allow or disallow men who wish to have sex with other men to do so. . . . The panel has to be convinced that they are not setting out to threaten the family unit with their subversive homosexual agenda. . . . The Pope should be of good enough character to join the panel. . . . Another digression, I know. But aren't digressions fun?
OK, Molly isn't trying to make fun of Aims. She thinks it has done a decent job and could be shaping its recommendations in a way that would make them seem more palatable to the Gahmen. Which may say something about how people view the Gahmen . . .
Molly is probably just being cynical. But perhaps we might end up with several possible scenarios if we do have a panel to decide if political films are to be banned:
1. Only party political films made by the PAP or those that put them in favorable light end up being considered objective and not misleading.
2. Films about the PAP that try to expose their shortcomings (etc) will all be banned, because the PAP is . . . perfect.
3. Films about opposition parties (perhaps made by the PAP) will not be banned, because they don't mislead the public, but only truthfully and objectively portray them as the demonic cults that they are.
4. All films that further the cause of a particular political party will be banned because they mislead the public by unnecessarily arousing their emotions but portraying a distorted picture of social injustices (which clearly don't exist in utopian Singapore).
5. The panel is really independent. But it is given a set of guidelines to make their decisions . . . It's just like how there's no use how independent the judiciary is of the law itself favors certain people. (Not that this happens in Singapore.)
6. Party political films cannot be political, except when they are politically non-political in celebrating the achievements and wisdom of a certain old man of a certain party.
Yes, party political films must not be political. It might not make any sense, but it certainly sounds typically Singaporean to me. After all, I can't imagine a political film that cannot possibly be construed as something that could mislead the public. If it is political, it has the potential to be deemed misleading. I not saying that this would definitely happen, but it is the worst-case scenario where lifting the ban makes no difference from not lifting it, except that the government can claim to have opened up. It might not happen. After all, we don't know whether the Gahmen would take up the suggestion or not.
Do you think, though, that very soon, I would be able to make a film about how the PAP regime and how it used the ISD to crack down on dissidents under the pretext of a Marxist conspiracy? Or would such a film be misleading the public about how the Gahmen works?
............................
ST Article: "Lift Ban on Political Films" [December 3 2008]
SINGAPOREANS can get to watch films about local politicians and their parties, as film-makers look set to enjoy more freedom to make them.
But such party political films still have to clear one hurdle before they can be screened. An independent panel of experts will first have to decide if the film had set out to mislead the public.
If so, it would be banned.
All this hinges on the Government accepting this recommendation from a council it appointed to study the impact of new media and advise the Government on its policies accordingly.
Yesterday, the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (Aims) released its recommendations in a 224-page report.
Currently, all party political films are banned under Section 33 of the Films Act.
The council wants it repealed - but in stages, with the new panel as a transition.
This middle-of-the-road suggestion is one of three it had made in an earlier consultation paper. The other two are: Repeal it totally, and narrow its scope.
The Government will announce its position in six weeks, said the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (Mica) in a statement yesterday.
Earlier, at a news conference, Aims chairman Cheong Yip Seng explained the need for the change. He said the law had to be liberalised to keep up with technology and also to meet the aspirations of Singaporeans who want more political space.
But at the same time, some Singaporeans, in their feedback to Aims, are worried about unfettered online debate.
For instance, there could be films that 'mislead the public, arouse emotions unnecessarily, muddy the waters when you debate a certain political issue', he said. [I wonder why some Singaporeans find this worrying. Sighz. Singaporeans . . .]
The council received 87 e-mail messages and SMSes during a six-week public consultation process, after it released a paper. It also spoke to diverse groups, including the Law Society and bloggers.
In producing the report, Aims sought to find a balance between those who wanted a free-for-all regime, and others who were more cautious.
The result of nearly two years' of work, the report included three other areas: engaging citizens online; protecting minors online; and protecting websites that carry content from the public, from defamation suits. [I'm surprised this is covered. I had once cynically asked an interviewer if it was possible to suggest that free expression be protected instead of suggesting how to regulate it. Though I would be more surprised in any law is passed to protect free expression, even if it's just online expression.] It also wants the Government to lift the rule requiring the registration of political party websites. Minister Lee Boon Yang thanked the 13-member council, saying it faced an 'enormous, difficult and challenging task'.
To date, two films have been prohibited under Section 33. One is Singapore Rebel in 2005, on Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan. The other was A Vision Of Persistence, a 2002 documentary on the late J.B. Jeyaretnam.
To decide whether such political films 'distort facts and mislead the viewer' would be an 'onerous' job for the suggested panel, acknowledged Mr Cheong.
'Many are likely to fall in the grey area,' he said. Therefore, it was important the panel enjoys public credibility as an independent body, he added. [I would think so too. And that might be the biggest challenge yet.]
There is another safeguard, said Aims deputy chairman Tan Cheng Han. The panel's reasons for its decisions have to be made public, he added.
The council declined to set a timeline for the repeal. But three factors will determine the pace, said Mr Cheong. These are: technology, social conditions, and the panel's experience. 'If its experience shows quite clearly it doesn't really make sense to go through this transition, then repeal is the obvious answer,' he said. [Glad to hear this though, unfortunately, it's not the Gahmen saying this.]
Aims also wants the panel to take on an additional role: advise the Mica Minister before he bans any film 'against the public interest' - a power given under Section 35 of the same Act. [Haha. So, ultimately, the independent panel, being independent, might find Singapore Rebel acceptable. But the minister can still ban it? Doesn't this whole thing look like a wayang in liberalization then?]
Again, it recommended that the reasons for the ban be made public.
Ultimately, would these measures be toothless, given that film-makers can upload their films on YouTube? [I would rather ask: ultimately, would the supposed liberalization not be a true liberalization if people are already making political films and uploading them on youtube?]
There is no perfect solution, said Mr Cheong. But the sum total of the report 'is going to mean broader political space for Singaporeans'.
'And if the Government warmly embraces what we suggest...I think it would lead to greater diversity of opinion, more choice, more space for Singaporeans to discuss issues that affect all our futures.'
