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

25 new cases of COVID-19 infection in S’pore; 6 out of 19 community cases unlinked

As of Sunday noon (30 May), the Ministry of Health (MOH) has…

为“专注打理市镇会” AHTC市镇会同意遵循国家发展部指示

阿裕尼—后港市镇理事会今日(17日)发文告表示,为了“能把精力投入打理市镇的核心事务”,决定遵循国家发展部指令,限制工人党主席林瑞莲与议员刘程强,在市镇会财务上的决策权。 去年11月30日,该市镇会议决上述二人无需回避市镇会所有财务事务;不过国家发展部随后在12月3日,对该市镇会发出指令,要求限制上述二人财务决策权。 该部认为市镇会提出的陈情理由,和法庭裁决两人疏失“不能相提并论”;也指市镇会的改进措施不显著,恐未能有效避免财务疏失重演。 对此,该市镇会也在今日文告指出,国家发展部长黄循财,动用《市镇会法》43D(2)项,要该市镇会遵从指示,对于政府决定“U转”“感到惊讶”。 去年11月5日,财政部长王瑞杰发起在国会发起动议。当时财政部及教育部第二部长英兰妮曾指出,市镇会才有权限裁决是否要刘、林二人回避财政事务。 再者,当时官委议员王丽婷质问,为何要在国会通过没有法律效应的动议,即便市镇会法43D项已赋予部长权利可采取必要行动。 但社会及家庭发展部长兼国家发展部第二部长李智陞随即解释,林瑞莲、刘程强二人2011年着手市镇会,之后数年才加入43D项,也指该条款让部长依据报告或调查、检讨后,才采取行动。 阿裕尼-后港市镇会称,同意部长指上述条款缺追溯权力。不过,有鉴于国家发展部警告若不遵循指示,可能面对惩处,该市镇会只得遵守,以便把精力都集中在管理市镇会事务。 此外,该市镇会也解释,自今年1月16日起,林瑞莲将不再代表市镇会批准支出或单方面授权接受/豁免任何招标及报价等。 同时,林瑞莲和刘程强在市镇会采购和开销委员会投票将无效;并在下月的会议,移除两人支票签署人的权限。

民主党要求撤更正指示:征询法律意见呈书面回应

人力部长对新加坡民主党,三则有关PMET(专业人士、经理、执行员与技师)课题的贴文发出更正指示,后者选择上诉高庭,诉讼本月16日审理。 在昨日(17日)的审讯,代表政府的总检察署指根据公开的数据,显示民主党作出的声明是虚假的,副总检察长哈里古玛认为一般理性读者都会认为,后者是在指当前本地PMET裁员有增长。 该党秘书长徐顺全则反问“谁才是理性读者、且谁能决定什么数据才算‘当前’的?”而是用这样的主观术语,又如何能确定该党做了虚假陈述?他重申这不能仅基于部长的诠释。 民主党选择自行辩护。基于双方论点牵涉技术和法律问题,法官同意让民主党征询法律意见,并在下周三(22日)前提呈书面回应陈词。目前法官仍保留判决,择日下判。 民主党主席淡马亚此前指出,实际上该党都是根据人力部公开的资料,作出的“合理诠释”。 徐顺全则指出,实则人力部的数据同样无误,只不过是选择使用不同时期的数据,却反指该党的数据是不对的,即便该党的资料也是来自人力部。 徐顺全强调,在法庭讨论的关键点,是一般理性人士会如何看待民主党发表的声明。      

Historian Thum Ping Tjin opposes fake news law since “virtually anything can be deemed misleading”

Historian Dr Thum Ping Tjin told Yahoo News Singapore in an email…