Tag: MDA

  • Masyarakat Melayu-Islam Patut Boycott Cathay Cinemas

    Masyarakat Melayu-Islam Patut Boycott Cathay Cinemas

    Admin,

    Saya ada baca tentang sokongan yang diberi syarikat-syarikat tempatan dan MNCs untuk menjayakan acara Pink Dot. Sekarang kita baru tahu yang pawagam Cathay pun teleh berniat untuk menyiarkan iklan Pink Dot di pawagam-pawagamnya . Usaha itu buntu sebab MDA tak luluskan ikklan tersebut.

    Ada pihak yang meneyeru agar Cathay diboycott. Saya sokong 100% seruan ini.

    Saya bapa kepada seorang anak lelaki berusia lima tahun. Saya dan isteri dulu juga sering ke Cathay untuk menonton wayang ketika tengah dating dulu. Sekarang kita juga ke Cathay sekeluarga untuk menonton cartoon…hiburan untuk anak.

    Jadi saya sekeluarga kecewa apabila diberitahu yang makanan dan minuman yang dijual Cathay tidak lagi Halal. Saya rasa terkilan. Memanglah kita boleh melanggani pawagam lain tetapi Cathay yang penuh bermakna bagi saya sekeluarga.

    Saya tertanya menagapa Cathay membuat langkah komersil sedemikian? Mungkin jumlah penonton Islam kekurangan. Mungking Cathay tak kisah langsung dan tidak endahkan maklum balas daripada pelanngan Islam mereka.

    Tetapi ianya lebih jelasa sekarang.

    Cathay lebih rela mempromosikan acara yang bercanggah dengan ajaran Islam daripada menjaga hati pelanggan Muslim. Bila makan minum dah tak halal dan mereka juga menyokong aktiviti haram, apa lagi yang boleh penonton lakukan?

    Tak payah kita buat bising. Jawapannya senang je. Kita sama-sama boycott Cathay, walau berat hati nak lakukannya.

     

    Adam

    [Reader Contribution]

  • MDA Bans Pink Dot SG Ad

    MDA Bans Pink Dot SG Ad

    Over the weekend, the seventh edition of Pink Dot SG saw its largest turn-out yet, with more than 28,000 people coming together. This was despite the organisers facing several challenging situations from the community.

    According to a statement from the Pink Dot SG organisers, a 15-second pre-event advertisement for Pink Dot that was meant to be screened in cinemas  was refused a rating by the MDA last Friday after a two-month wait, effectively banning it. The statement said that the MDA cited the reason that “it is not in the public interest to allow cinema halls to carry advertising on LGBT issues.”

    Responding to Marketing‘s queries, MDA said it had “carefully considered” Cathay Organisation’s application on 12 May to screen a Pink Dot 2015 promotional trailer in its cinemas.

    “This is the first time MDA has received such an application. MDA has concluded that it is not in the public interest to allow cinema halls to carry advertising on LGBT issues, whether they are advocating for the cause, or against the cause. MDA has therefore rejected Cathay Organisation’s application to screen the trailer,”the spokesperson added.

    The ad is currently running on Pink Dot SG’s social media channels. Here’s the full ad:

    Nonetheless, the Pint Dot SG organisers added that this year the event saw its largest-ever list of corporate sponsors. Social media giant Twitter, local entertainment giant Cathay Organisation, as well as financial software, data and media company Bloomberg, join returning sponsors Google, Barclays, Goldman Sachs, BP, J.P. Morgan and The Gunnery.

    This year’s Pink Dot focused on the message, “Where Love Lives,” and invited the community to reflect on the progress that has been made towards dispelling the discrimination and prejudice that face lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, as well as the many challenges that still remain. People were encouraged to take part in Pink Dot’s social media campaign, #WhereLoveLivesSg. The campaign was powered by local social media agency, Campaign.com.

    Paerin Choa, a Pink Dot SG spokesperson added, “After the setbacks that we had experienced over the last 12 months, giving up and losing hope would have been the easy thing to do. But we also know that Singapore’s LGBT community are a very resilient bunch, and in view of these challenges, we still have much to celebrate.”

    Among the major challenges the community had faced over the past year, probably the biggest was the verdict in October last year by the Court of Appeal upholding the constitutionality of Section 377a of the Penal Code, which criminalises physical intimacy between men.

    Locally, furniture brand IKEA also recently came under fire for partnering up with Faith Community Baptist Church (FCBC) controversial pastor Lawrence Khong who has been in the limelight for openly opposing homosexuality.

    Meanwhile last year, The National Library Board (NLB) came under intense fire from netizens after it decided to pull off two children’s book titles off its shelves. The books were removed after the board received complaints from a member of the public stating that the titles And Tango Makes Three and The White Swan Express were not in line with traditional family values. The first book depicts two male penguins acting like a couple raising a young penguin and the latter talks about a single mother, adoption and a lesbian couple.

     

    Source: www.marketing-interactive.com

  • Andrew Loh: Calvin Cheng’s Behaviour Not Befitting Of Media Literacy Council Member

    Andrew Loh: Calvin Cheng’s Behaviour Not Befitting Of Media Literacy Council Member

    Calvin Cheng is an acquaintance of mine. I even had him on my Facebook “friends” list. But not anymore. I removed him after his latest Facebook posting which insinuated that the writings or work of playwright Alfian Sa’at were such a potential threat that “the Government should watch commentators” like Alfian “closely”.

    He then accused Alfian of “irresponsible rhetoric”, and likened Alfian to “domestic agitators”.

    Read in context, these unsubstantiated claims and their insinuations are obvious.

    Many have taken Calvin Cheng to task, and I shall not go into arguing against the points in his posting.

    They are clearly pure nonsense.

    What I am more interested in is Calvin Cheng’s membership in the Media Literacy Council (MLC), a government-appointed outfit which advises the Government on “research, trends and developments pertaining to the Internet and media, and appropriate policy responses.”

    The MLC also “[develops] public awareness and education programmes relating to media literacy and cyber wellness”, and it seeks “to promote an astute and responsible participatory culture.”

    “Through our work, we aim to… encourage users to be more reflective about the ethical choices they make as participants and communicators and the impact they have on others,” the MLC website says.

    The MLC consists of 26 members, headed by professor Tan Cheng Han of the Centre for Law and Business, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore .

    Calvin Cheng is a council member. (See here.)

    On the council’s “Media Literacy Council Core Values” page, the council states several “key areas” which it “seeks to address”.

    These include “uncivil behaviours online” which, the council says, “refers to behaviours that are anti-social, offensive, irresponsible or simply mean.”

    Do note the last word – “mean” – which the council considers as undesirable “uncivil behaviour”.

    The  Media Literacy Core Values “encompasses a set of values and skills that … are indispensable to conducive and positive living especially in the digital age,” the MLC says.

    “The Media Literacy Core Values will underpin the Council’s public education and outreach programmes.”

    If you turn to the “Best Practices” page on the MLC website, you see a tab titled “Values and Social Norms”.

    What are these?

    They are four sets of advice which, the MLC says, will help you keep your friends and not make enemies.

    One of the ways to achieve this is to “win people over with your objective arguments and logic” because “hysterics will not get you anywhere.”

    “There is no need to make personal attacks as everyone is entitled to their own views,” the MLC says. “Make out your case politely and objectively. You might find that you will get a few converts instead of enemies.”

    It also urges participants to reject and report “bad or bullying behaviour”, as this means “you are helping to create a better cyber space by propagating positive social norms.”

    The MLC uses words such as “empathy and graciousness”, “respect”, “responsibility and integrity” as values and social norms it champions.

    So there. The MLC has laid out, basically, what is good online behaviour which will foster a positive environment for everyone.

    What then of those, especially those in positions of influence (no matter how limited), who behave in ways which run against what the MLC is promoting?

    Indeed, what if the behaviour of MLC members themselves betrays the MLC’s very own core values and best practices?

    Insinuating that someone is responsible for some misguided terrorist group’s potentially harmful actions in Singapore because one raises concerns about minority race issues is just plain irresponsible itself, no?

    And accusing someone of being a “domestic agitator” in that context is not only devious, it is also highly dangerous, for it plays up the racial and religious faultlines here.

    Additionally, if behaviours such as Calvin Cheng’s are allowed to propagate, they may have the effect of silencing those in the minority races from speaking up about genuine grievances.

    So, one would not object if the Internal Security Department (ISD) invites Calvin Cheng for an interview about his posting.

    It is also not unknown that Calvin Cheng also engages in online challenges, such as a recent one where he challenged a poster to meet him and slap him, and also engages in baiting others, such as calling them “ball-less” when challenges are not taken up.

    bait

    Indeed, he is also known and seen as a troll in some quarters.

    “Trolls want to create discord by purposely baiting people to react,” the MLC website says.

    One just needs to peruse his Facebook postings to see the tone of his exchanges with others over any issue.

    To be sure, Calvin Cheng is not alone in engaging in this less than desirable behaviour.

    There is also the other pro-PAP cesspool Facebook page which spews non-stop bile online everyday.

    And it seems that this cesspool is the only site which is supportive of Calvin Cheng’s behaviour – and that says a lot: if all you have is a cesspit to stand on or stand with, you should realise your credibility is in deep shit.

    I wish Calvin Cheng, being a former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) – which comes with a certain level of expected public responsibility and decorum – would not resort to such hateful behaviour towards others.

    There are certainly better ways to get your points across than to resort to attempts in dragging someone’s name through the mud.

    Ironically, in 2013, Calvin Cheng wrote – in a letter to the Straits Times Forum page:

    “If there is a terrorist attack or a viral outbreak, and people turn to the Internet for conspiracy theories and advice instead of listening to and trusting the Government, the consequences could be unimaginable.”

    Yes, ironic indeed that he is the one now spewing exactly such conspiracy theories.

    So, I ask myself: what do the MLC members think of this sort of behaviour?

    But personally, I have a deeper, more troubling question, and it is this:

    What kind of person would cause another person more pain at a time when the latter is also grieving over the recent death of his mother?

    I cannot fathom the depths of depravity which would make anyone do such a thing.

    Alfian’s mother had just passed away last week, and Alfian is still in mourning.

    The very fact that Calvin Cheng saw it fit to launch his baseless and unsubstantiated attacks on Alfian at this time speaks of his (Calvin Cheng’s) mental make-up and of how truly oblivious he is.

    Pity, Calvin, that you find it apt to do this to Alfian at this time and betray everything that the MLC stands for.

    I think the MLC, funded by public money, seriously needs to look into the online behaviour of its member.

     

    Source: https://andrewlohhp.wordpress.com

  • Bertha Henson: TRS Kena Part 2

    Bertha Henson: TRS Kena Part 2

    I was a little puzzled by the Media Development Authority’s order to The Real Singapore to shut down. Not that I would miss TRS. I am puzzled at the way the law and media regulations look like a badly sewn patchwork.

    The kindest thing I can say about the G’s move is that it is still wondering how to handle the wacky online world.

    So the MDA couldn’t do a thing about TRS in the past because it based its operations abroad. That means it didn’t come under the ambit of the Broadcasting Act.  Until December that is, when Yang Kaiheng, a Singaporean, and his Australian fiancé, Ai Takagi, started “running their operation from Singapore’’, said the MDA.

    I wonder if running an operation FROM Singapore is the same as running operation IN Singapore because I gather that the couple were nabbed while on a trip here from Australia in February. So, they weren’t based here but the servers were? Administration? What?

    In any case, a couple of months passed…before the cops, not the MDA, acted. Why didn’t the media regulations kick in first (in December?) if the MDA is so keen to protect the reading/viewing public? Instead, it gets into the act after the couple got the book thrown at them.

    I can’t help but wonder if somebody made some mistake here… Did someone think that TRS would automatically shut down or suspend itself after the couple got charged? And when it didn’t and continued to have those allegedly seditious posts accessible online and operated business-as-usual, that someone realized that TRS wasn’t going to play ball? Or were the criminal charges levelled simply so as to keep the couple in Singapore? (By the way, Yang has been allowed to leave Singapore to attend to his sick father.)

    I had a look at the Sedition Act which can be used against any person who “ prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication’’. The penalty: fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both, and, for a subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

    I am not going to say more about this because the case is before the courts. And that is what makes the MDA move even more puzzling. By ordering a shutdown, hasn’t it prejudiced the sedition case against the couple? Or is it going to split hairs and say that it was not referring to the seven charges which refer to specific posts when it made the order – but on other matters posted on TRS?

    There are too many questions surrounding this issue which I am sure is being watched by anyone who has a website.

    In its statement, MDA said TRS published “prohibited material as defined by the Code to be objectionable on the grounds of public interest, public order and national harmony.’’ I looked at the Code on what was considered “prohibited material’’ and I guess it would be this one:

    (g) whether the material glorifies, incites or endorses ethnic, racial or religious hatred, strife or intolerance.

    It also said that “TRS has deliberately fabricated articles and falsely attributed them to innocent parties. TRS has also inserted falsehoods in articles that were either plagiarised from local news sources or sent in by contributors so as to make the articles more inflammatory.’’

    You know, I didn’t know the MDA also policed a site’s errors and plagiarism…But I suppose if a site does so with the intention of inflaming passions and increases eyeballs while raising eyebrows, then there’s a reason for its intervention.

    The statement goes on about how “at least two out of TRS’s three known editors are believed to be foreigners – Takagi is Australian, while another editor Melanie Tan is believed to be Malaysian’’. “The foreign editors were responsible for several articles that sought to incite anti-foreigner sentiments in Singapore.’’

    Hmm…Is the problem one of having foreign editors? Is this something all websites must guard against? Or is this about foreigners trying to incite anti-foreigner sentiments here? How does the MDA know that the foreign editors were responsible when it is so tentative about how many editors the site has in total and even the nationality of the third?

    The landscape is way too complicated.

    Even though all websites come under the statutory class licence requirement in the Broadcasting Act, the MDA decided two years ago that some big sites which report on Singapore to Singaporeans should be licensed with a $50,000 bond. If TRS was based in Singapore, maybe this licensing route would suffice to keep it in line given its 1.2 million unique visitors a month.

    Then the MDA also decided that some websites, never mind how fledgling, should register once they decide to go commercial (I declare my interest here as the former editor of Breakfast Network), I thought, ah, maybe TRS would be cornered here, given that it charges six figures in ad space a month. Then again, no, because, I think, it didn’t have a Singapore-based company.

    Then TRS moved here.

    It’s a bit ironic that it was the good ole Class Licence requirement that was held against it after all the fuss made about earlier tweaks in regulations.

    Some people have said that the unprecedented application of the Class Licence requirement reflected the “light touch’’ of the G. In other words, it waited till “now’’ to actually use it. But they forgot to say that the Sedition Act charges came first.

    We need a lot of clarification here…but how to ask/answer questions when the court is involved? The court action and the MDA move are not separate issues – or are they?

    Sigh.

    Where oh where is that promised review of the Broadcasting Act?

     

    Source: https://berthahenson.wordpress.com

  • FreeMyInternet Expresses Displeasure With The Media Development Authority

    FreeMyInternet Expresses Displeasure With The Media Development Authority

    The FreeMyInternet group expresses our complete and utter disappointment at the Media Development Authority’s (MDA) action in censoring The Real Singapore (TRS), call for this arbitrary and unsubstantiated action to be revoked immediately, and for MDA to come clean on its processes and standards as a regulatory body.

    While not all of us might necessarily agree with TRS’s editorial direction or content, what TRS is alleged to have done is no reason for MDA to force a shutdown on the site. MDA’s actions exhibited two key problems: Disproportionate power vested in a statutory board, and unclear guidelines on actions to be taken against objectionable content.

    The unfettered power given to MDA is disproportionate in that it gives a statutory board the the sole discretion to close down a website without due process, judiciary or otherwise. This is inconsistent with Singapore’s position as a state that is ruled by law, transparency and accountability.

    Furthermore, MDA claimed TRS has “published prohibited material as defined by the Code to be objectionable on the grounds of public interest, public order and national harmony” and “responsible for several articles that sought to incite anti-foreigner sentiments in Singapore”. In relation to the current court case against TRS, this runs the risk of sub-judice. As a statutory board, MDA should have known better than to take actions that can potentially pre-judge the court case.

    MDA has also clearly exhibited inconsistency in how it approaches “objectionable content”, be it online or in traditional media. MDA has claimed that “TRS has deliberately fabricated articles and falsely attributed them to innocent parties. TRS has also inserted falsehoods in articles that were either plagiarised from local news sources or sent in by contributors so as to make the articles more inflammatory.”

    Objectionable, fabricated and plagiarised content is a regular practice in both mainstream and online media, and most certainly undesirable. But what gives MDA the right to stop the operation of a website on this basis? Websites managed by traditional news outlets have also been known to have fabricated content. Does MDA intend to take action against any website that plagiarises or fabricates content? What is MDA’s basis and standards for taking action, and what are the specific examples cited for TRS? Would it not be sufficient to request for the removal of specific articles rather than the termination of an entire website?

    Ai Takagi and Yang Kaiheng with lawyer Choo Zheng Xi (image - CNA)
    Ai Takagi and Yang Kaiheng with lawyer Choo Zheng Xi (image – CNA)

    Without such clarity and accountability, we are left with no choice but to once again call doubt on MDA’s ability to be a fair and effective media regulator. The unsubstantiated and extraordinary actions taken by MDA against TRS cannot be seen as rules-based, transparent, and fair; only arbitrary and selective. As it is, we can only view MDA’s action against TRS as nothing short of a poorly-conceived and brutal attempt at censorship.

    We also wish to highlight that MDA has chosen to take such action on 3 May,World Press Freedom Day. This is an affront to an international movement championed by the United Nations.

    The FreeMyInternet group reaffirms our position that the right way to deal with any content deemed objectionable and offensive is with open discussion and reasoned debate. Such has also been the position championed by the Media Literacy Council. Shutting anyone down for disagreeable content, by anyone’s standard much less that of a regulator that has been inconsistent in its standards, is a trigger happy approach that reeks of blatant censorship and does not speak well of Singapore as a democratic country.

    The above statement was made in exclusion of Mr Choo Zheng Xi, who is currently representing the editors of TRS in their court case.

    * * * * *

    People walk past mock gravestone during protest against new licensing regulations in SingaporeAbout FreeMyInternet

    The FreeMyInternet movement was founded by a collective of bloggers who are against the licensing requirements imposed by the Singapore government on 1 June 2013, which requires online news sites to put up a performance bond of S$50,000 and comply within 24 hours to remove content that is found to be in breach of content standards. The group believes this to be an attempt at censorship and an infringement on the rights of Singaporeans to access information online and calls for a withdrawal of this licensing regime.

     

    Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com