The Info-Comm Media Development Authority (IMDA) confirmed that the Ministry of Home Affair (MHA) was among the ‘relevant parties’ that were consulted on the WATAIN concert before it was given the green-light.

IMDA’s cluster director of communications and marketing Karen Low said, “Given the band’s history and concerns expressed by MHA, IMDA allowed the Watain concert with a rating of ‘Restricted 18 (R18)’.”

She added that this is how IMDA has treated similar performances in the past. “In assessing and classifying content for arts performances and concerts, IMDA aims to protect the young from unsuitable content, maintain community norms and values, and safeguard public interest, while enabling adults to make informed choices,” she said.

However, after the concert was cancelled hours before it was to be held on 7 March, Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugan said to the press that he couldn’t see how the Swedish black metal ban could have been allowed to perform in Singapore given their anti-Christian lyrics.

IMDA pulled the plug on the concert after MHA advised IMDA against allowing the concert to proceed. MHA, on the other hand, insisted that the online petition with over 16,000 signatures created on 6 March calling for the government to ban WATAIN had no bearing on the MHA’s decision.

“I saw the lyrics – it’s four-letter words on Jesus Christ, on Christianity, on religion, abusing the cross – everything that is so far out that I can’t see how we could have agreed to it,” said Mr Shanmugam.

He said, “The Christian preachers, when they talk to me, say ‘you are very, very strict when it comes to anti-Muslim, anti-Islamic messages…They said: ‘You treat the Muslim community differently than the Christian community.’ I looked at it and I thought that there is some truth to what they say, I won’t say that it is completely true but it is an approach.”

The thing is, since IMDA confirmed that they did in fact consult MHA before approving WATAIN’s concert, we can presume that the lyrics and background of the band would have been made known to MHA beforehand.

However on the day the Watain concert was due to take place – MHA asked IMDA to consider cancelling the performance due to “new and serious concerns about public order, and ground reactions relating to social and religious harmony.”

So we can see that the IMDA’s stance hasn’t changed and the band certainly didn’t change their lyrics. On the other hand, the two evolving factors are MHA’s “new and serious concerns” about the concert and the last minute online petition to ban WATAIN.

When you look at it that way, can we really be certain that MHA’s wasn’t influenced by the petition to reverse its initial decision?

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

评论刻板印象描述客工 王昌伟教授轰莫忽视结构性剥削问题

本周一(13日),《联合早报》出现一则由黎仕婉撰写的评论《疫情时期不做无谓指责》,相信是为了反驳早前许通美教授斥责我国“以第三世界的方式”对待客工。 她认为这位前高官言下之意政府并没有好好对待客工,开始举例常看到客工吃了饭盒和饮料罐丢一旁;指友人租房给客工,结果屋内有蟑螂痕迹,“指责和批评是极其容易的事。客工宿舍病例大增,难道客工本身没有责任吗?喜欢聚集和不注重个人卫生不也是原因吗?” 这则评论引起各界讨论。新加坡国立大学中文系副主任王昌伟教授也在《早报》撰文回击,批评照黎仕婉的意思,就是政府已做得很到位,居住环境的脏乱,是客工的文化(用手抓饭吃)和教养(个人素养)的问题。 对此王昌伟在评论中举例,殖民地时期,每当暴发传染病,殖民政府上流阶层就会指华人、马来人、印度人又脏又臭;那么今天我们对客工的形容和殖民主义者的偏见又有何不同? 他直言,今日我国相对整洁的市容主要是政府过去落实的一系列政策如绿化、多建组屋、罚款等的效果,但今日客工居住环境之恶劣,同样是因为政府由于各种原因,长期没有照顾这个处于弱势的群体所造成的。 “今天客工所面对的困境,是全球资本主义浪潮下结构性阶级剥削的一个缩影。” 王昌伟认为当前更应该去正视问题,而不是把客工所处环境脏乱归咎于他们的卫生习惯,“再进一步引申,把矛头指向客工的文化,是不折不扣的种族主义。”

PA says the officer who submitted dubious receipts for reimbursement claims has quit last year

It was earlier reported that the Auditor-General Office (AGO) has questioned the…

救济食品不应为了送而送 志工吁应先了解弱势老人状况

当你看见独居高龄老人时,是否会想向他们伸出援手?而民以食为天,一般会想到的方式就是为他们解决三餐,不让他们挨饿,所以会送上许多佐料和食材,希望他们不用出门也可以填饱肚子。但,你是否想过这真的是他们所需要的吗? “让希望活下去”(Keeping Hope Alive)志愿组织于周三(28日)在脸书上呼吁,民众勿将食材和佐料随意送往独居老人。 该组织创办人潘迎芬分享,有一名80岁左右的独居老人,家中堆满无数的包装食品与佐料。根据老人表示,这些食物都是由别人捐送,但他其实并不会下厨。 “想象你在一名80岁老人住处里看见无数食物与佐料。这些都是民众“捐送”给他,问题是老人无法下厨!“,志工表示。 志工随后要大家反思捐送的意义,是真的为了满足对方所需,还是仅仅为了安抚自己的内心?他在文内最后也表示,只有送出别人真正需要的东西,付出才会显得更有价值。 她说,“请想想我们真的是为了给出对方所需要的东西吗?还是仅仅为了安抚自己,认为自己正在做一件善事?付出是一门艺术与智慧的体现。请给出对方所需的,而不是我们想要,付出才会显得更有意义。 潘迎芬想表达的,并不是赠送食物是错误的行为,而是在赠送前需想清楚对方的需求。许多独居老人可能年纪渐长的关系,活动力早已大不如前。对他们而言,可能简单的起身或蹲下都相当困难。 如同潘迎芬曾在帖文内分享另一例子:他们在帮助一名90岁老人收拾住处时发现一些腐烂的食物,经询问后发现,老人其实很爱料理食物,但由于年纪渐长,活动力较差而无法自己动手,才会很少下厨。 帖文上传后,引起网友的关注,网友纷纷赞同志工的想法,认为要帮助人首先要了解其需求,而不是给出自己所想,这样才显得有意义。 网友Karen…