Screengrab from SDP video

By Rachel Zeng

“Pappy Washing Powder”, a video released online by the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) on 5 August 2015, has been classified as a party political film by the Media Development Authority (MDA) on 17 August 2015, and therefore prohibited under the Films Act.

However, the MDA had decided not to take further actions against the party as they consider this incident the first that concerns a party political film, citing the reason that parties might not be fully aware of the requirements under the Act.

In addition, they have also issued an advisory to political parties on 17 August 2015, reminding them to abide by the Films Act, and to “ensure that political debate in Singapore is conducted in a responsible and dignified manner, and not by using the film medium to sensationalise serious issues in a biased or emotional manner”.

The Films Act defines any film which is an advertisement made by or on behalf of any political party in Singapore, or any body whose objects relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore, or any branch of such party or body; or which is made by any person and directed towards any political end in Singapore.

Section 2(2) elaborates that a film is directed towards a political end if it contains in whole or in part, any matter which is intended or likely to affect voting in any election or national referendum in Singapore and references to or comments on any political matter which are either partisan or biased, including “the Government or a previous Government or the opposition to the Government or previous Government”.

According to Section 33 of the Act, making, showing, importing and distributing any party political film is prohibited unless it fulfils certain criteria which is elaborated under Section 2(3).

videos pap

A quick check on People’s Action Party’s (PAP) YouTube account, and found a total of twenty-nine films with a variety of content ranging from the introduction of their potential candidates to videos about the party’s history.

Although it is clear that the Films Act allows for films made on behalf of the candidates, the question remains whether party sponsored videos about their potential candidates, especially those that are launched close to the election season, hold any political end and if so, shouldn’t they be prohibited as well?

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

租金不降 知名港式酒吧“三姨太”宣布停业

再有一家本地企业不敌疫情,宣布结业。位于文达街25号的港式酒吧“三姨太”,在脸书宣布将结束营业。 据帖文提及,店东坚持收取冠病疫情前的租金,尽管有客户的支持,但毕竟不如疫情之前,租金占了成本很大比例,致使生意难以维系。 不过,帖文提及该酒吧仍试着物色较好的店东,仍呼吁旧雨新知“拭目以待”。不过就目前来说,必须先和客户说道别。透过帖文店主表达透过特色主题,为顾客带来欢乐和中式美食及酒吧的氛围,也向顾客致谢。 三姨太是八、九十年代港式风味主题的酒吧,也有一个颇具特色的天台露天餐厅。 据了解,他们在昨日至今日的下午1点至7点,开放兜售店内家私、餐具和纪念品等等。 To our beloved customers, we have shut…

National Day Week Series

By Ng Yi Shu – Feature: National Day Week Series Yesterday morning,…

中国籍女子不满判决 对法官出言不逊被判入狱三周

因不满家事法庭所判的结果,一名女子出言羞辱并威胁地方法官,被地方法院判入狱三周。 据《雅虎新闻》报道指出,该名女子为37岁中国籍女子张红红(译音),获得新加坡永久居留权,当时由于不满意离婚诉讼的结果,因此出言侮辱法官,称他为“婊子”,并威胁会打法官。 法官予以女子有条件的严厉警告,但随后在不到一年期间,再次侮辱法官,指责法官“品行愚蠢”,以及称法官与前夫有“勾结”。 上周五(27日),地方法院指控她涉嫌《防止骚扰法》,她承认相关罪行,因此获判三周监禁。 此外,她也涉嫌另一项对公务员出言不逊的指控,正在审判中。 案发经过 事发当时,女子与她的42岁新加坡籍前夫正在进行离婚诉讼,而且进行审判的是另有其人,并非受害者本身。 2017年8月25日,受害者中途接手案件,而且由受害者宣读有关婚姻财产分割、赡养费与孩子的审判。然而,女子对其结果并不满意 2017年11月,女子再次上诉,要求法官改变审判结果,法官分别在12月11日与22日召开聆讯。 据悉,女子对于前夫没有支付赡养费感到相当沮丧,认为家事法院并没有给予她足够的协助,感到愤怒。 2017年12月15日,女子在网上递交传票申请,并附上了一份宣誓书,控诉离最终判决已经超过一年,但仍未见前夫支付孩子的学费。 她也在宣誓书上表示,若家事法院未能在22日当天为她解决,她将会破坏法院以及殴打审判法官(即指受害者),并斥责受害者为婊子。…

Chiam See Tong Sports Fund supports national rower Joan Poh in her journey to the Olympics

National rower Joan Poh, who is aiming to qualify for the Tokyo…