Tag: Party Political Film

PAP Vs SDP: Which Video Is A Party Political Film?

On 17 August, the Singapore Democratic Party video, entitled “Pappy Washing Powder”, was classified a party political film by the Media Development Authority (MDA) and is therefore prohibited under the Films Act.

The MDA, however, has decided not to take further actions against the party as the video is considered the first party political film. The MDA said that as such the parties might not be fully aware of the requirements under the Act.

The MDA reminded the political parties 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.

In May 2014, the youth wing of the PAP, Young PAP, released a video entitled, “Re-ignite the Passion of Servant Leadership”, was cleared by the MDA and given a PG rating.

The MDA said the video “does not fall under the category of political films”.

The Straits Times reported:

“This is because it does not have animation or dramatic elements. The video is also made by a political party and comprises its manifesto and ideology, on the basis of which the party’s candidates will seek to be elected.”

The video seems to have been made private since then, after it drew widespread ridicule for being “robotic”. (A copy of it has been uploaded online by another Facebook page, and a parody of it emerged soon after. Please see below.)

On Monday, the MDA classified the SDP video as a party political film.

Can you tell why one is classified as such while the other is not?

The Young PAP video (from another Facebook page) – “Re-ignite the Passion of Servant Leadership”:

Parody of the PAP’s “Re-ignite the Passion of Servant Leadership”:

SDP’s “Pappy Washing Powder”:

Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

August 19, 2015
MDA Takes Swipe At SDP, Deems Pappy Washing Powder A Party Political Film

The Media Development Authority (MDA) has reminded political parties not to produce and distribute party political films in the run-up to the general elections.

It cited, for instance, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) clip Pappy Washing Powder and noted that such films are banned under Section 33 of the Films Act.

MDA, however, said it would not be taking action as parties may have not been fully aware of the requirements under the Act. Still, it added that it “will not hesitate to enforce the law firmly” if parties or candidates continued to publish such films.

The clip, which is slightly longer than one minute and was uploaded on YouTube by the SDP on Aug 5, shows a woman using a washing powder named Pappy White and bearing a lightning logo, to remove the words “transparency”, “accountability”, and “democracy” from T-shirts.

In its reminder, the MDA said that section 33 of the Films Act ensures “that political debate in Singapore is conducted in a responsible and dignified manner”.

Films must not be used to “to sensationalise serious issues in a biased or emotional manner”, it added.

The note to political parties also listed certain types of party political films that are allowed, such as live recordings of lawful events, commemorative videos, and factual documentaries.

Source: www.straitstimes.com

August 18, 2015
Martyn See: Did K Shanmugam Make An Illegal Party Political Film?

Did Law Minister K. Shanmugam make an illegal party political film?

Dear K. Shanmugam,

On the 10th of May 2015, you uploaded a video entitled “A Day in the Life of a Minister”, which features a camera crew tracking your activity of the day. It was an unscripted video shot and edited in the style of a reality-TV programme.

You stated that the 12-minute long video was made by “volunteers”. By that, one would assume that this is not a government-sponsored production. As such, may I inform you that this video is not exempted under section 40 of the Films Act and therefore in possible violation of section 33 which criminalises “party political films”, the penalties of which are a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.

I cite the following clauses of the Films Act relevant to “A Day in the Life of a Minister”.

“Party political film” means a film —

(a) 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

(b) which is made by any person and directed towards any political end in Singapore;

For the purposes of this Act, a film is directed towards a political end in Singapore if the film —

(a) contains wholly or partly any matter which, in the opinion of the Board, is intended or likely to affect voting in any election or national referendum in Singapore; or

(b) contains wholly or partly references to or comments on any political matter which, in the opinion of the Board, are either partisan or biased; and “political matter” includes but is not limited to any of the following:

(i) an election or a national referendum in Singapore;

(ii) a candidate or group of candidates in an election;

(iii) an issue submitted or otherwise before electors in an election or a national referendum in Singapore;

(iv) the Government or a previous Government or the opposition to the Government or previous Government;

(v) a Member of Parliament;

(vi) a current policy of the Government or an issue of public controversy in Singapore; or

(vii) a 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.

None of the following films shall be regarded for the purposes of this Act as a party political film:

(e) a documentary film without any animation and composed wholly of an accurate account depicting actual events, persons (deceased or otherwise) or situations, but not a film —

(i) wholly or substantially based on unscripted or “reality” type programmes; or

(ii) that depicts those events, persons or situations in a dramatic way;

Exemptions

40. —(1) This Act shall not apply to —

(a) any film sponsored by the Government;

(b) any film, not being an obscene film or a party political film or any feature, commercial, documentary or overseas television serial film, which is made by an individual and is not intended for distribution or public exhibition; and

(c) any film reproduced from local television programmes and is not intended for distribution or public exhibition.

(2) The Minister may, subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, exempt any person or class of persons or any film or class of films from all or any of the provisions of this Act.

(3) An exemption granted under this section may be withdrawn at any time.

I put it to you that the video “A Day in the Life of a Minister” may constitute an illegal ‘party political film’ under section 33 of the Films Act because :

1. It is an advertisement made by or on behalf of a political party in Singapore whose objects relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore.

2. It is made by a person and directed towards a political end in Singapore – by featuring a Member of Parliament.

3. It is a film that is substantially based on unscripted and “reality” type programmes, and it also contains dramatic elements.

4. It is not a government-sponsored film.

Of course, the Minister may opt to exercise section 40 of the Films Act to exempt your film from the Act.

In the interest of upholding transparency in the application of the Rule of Law in Singapore, this letter will be made public. I look forward to your reply on this matter.

Yours sincerely,
See Tong Ming

The above was emailed to K. Shanmugam on 11 May.

Source: Martyn See

May 12, 2015