My Dear Government, Why Do You Treat Me So?

AND

As a (second class) Singaporean, I am deeply saddened today to discover that my government is trying to enact changes to the law that will effectively give itself (too much) power in controlling the freedom of normal Singaporeans in using their camera-phones or video cameras to capture protests, acts of activism and such on film.

My friend alerted me to this by exclaiming that

"Will recording or filming of events which are considered illegal in law now itself be considered illegal?"

and I responded by saying

"I think the issue is with the 'live' streaming of films and not video recording per se. It would not be feasible to ban the recording of illegal events altogether because this would effect media reporting as well..."

He then replied with further information saying

"...it seemed to say that this amendment was going to give powers for police to confiscate the cameras or stop the filming of protests by people who were not journalists by profession."

I thought to myself, this was quite alarming and distatseful if it were to be the case - but I still did not believe it could be true. So I went searching for the original documentation on these changes and relied on the Singapore Statutes Online and the Films (Amendment) Bill as posted on the Singapore Parliament website.

Of the 3 changes that have been proposed in the bill (a local copy on my server, just in case), 2 are merely cosmetic changes (IMHO) which allow for an advisory board to influence decisions (section 4) and paraphrasing the section to allow for more comprehensiveness (Section 26).

The (shocking) point of contention, however, for me is the 3rd proposed change which refers to the definition and interpretation as per the provisions under the Films Act (Chapter 107), Section 2:

2-(2) 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 is intended or likely to affect voting in any election or national referendum in Singapore;

(b) contains wholly or partly either partisan or biased references to or comments on any political matter, including but 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.

2-(3) For the avoidance of doubt, any film which is made solely for the purpose of

(a) reporting of current events; or

(b) informing or educating persons on the procedures and polling times for any election or national referendum in Singapore,

is not a party political film.

After (and not if) the changes have been implemented, this section will read as follows (changes in red):

2-(2) 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;

(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 any "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.

The most critical change of all is Section 2-3(a) which changes from 'reporting of current events' to '...reporting of news by a broadcasting service licenced under any written law'. This in itself places anyone filming an 'illegal event' who does not have a press pass in the cross hairs of the authorities (which include the Police) who, under Section 34 of this act, can search and seize any film and equipment used.

Subsequently (upon conviction) such equipment and film 'shall be forfeited and shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of in such manner as the Minister may direct' as well.

I am deeply saddened that in the proposed Bill, where explanations and justifications were provided for all the changes, this critical change was explained away as the expansion of the original list without referring to the change in terminology - ayone can report on current affairs but only a select few may be part of 'a broadcasting service licenced by any law'.

It seems as though this telling change is being sneaked in without any forthright explanation. Honestly, I cannot accept the change or the manner in which it has been included. As far as I am concerned, it is truly a sad day for Singapore as a modern city when (and not if) this section comes into play.

Then, not only will protesting be illegal, so will filming it. My God! What's next? Turning your head to glance becomes an offence? Or will reading the placard/banner/t-shirt lead to being indefinitely detained under the ISA?

*This article has been featured*


*This article has been featured*

Of Dragons And Shopping Centres...

Am I the only one who finds the (alleged) donation of a hanged murderer's kidney to a rich tycoon a little bit too convenient? The plot of this story is quite incredible and worthy of a drama movie, IMHO.

1) Rich tycoon convicted of buying organs gets an unexpected second chance
2) Cold-blooded murderer turns good at moment of death


However, the obvious doubts that come to my mind are:

a) Since a rich man with abundant wealth at his disposal that enables him to make all sorts of clandestine arrangements if he so wishes, is involved, AND who has been convicted of buying a kidney, to boot; shouldn't the authorities look at this very closely and find out if any compensation was (or will be) made?

b) The 'one-eyed dragon' was obviously a person of ill-repute (as far as reports in the press portray him) and someone who was trying to stay alive (evidenced by his appeal for clemency). Isn't it (too) extremely remarkable for such a person, who couldn't care less about someone's life (ie. the person he murdered) to turn around and be suddenly altruistic at the moment of death (allegedly without any coercion)?

c) Why did the 'dragon' choose the tycoon anyway?

Under these circumstances, it is hard not to think that the tycoon who has demonstrated that he is not beyond using his wealth to try anything and everything, might have offered some sort of compensation in order for the murderer's 2 young children to be well taken care of.

I wonder if 2 or 3 years down the road a trust fund is set up for the children, would that be illegal - or explained away as an act of altruism? Or can the law be circumvented to suggest that it is not an offence to provide compensation to the dead donor's family?

Unless there is some form of disclosure to address these doubts and concerns, there is no way to rectify these negative speculations, is there? I , for one, cannot accept things at face value and cannot simply take the word of the tycoon, or the family of the donor.

Honestly, I would like to see some investigation being done that exonerates the tycoon of this speculation and also the legal undertaking by both parties that any money that may be handed over from the tycoon to the donor's family will be seized. Only then can there be fairness to all those un-tycoon kidney patients who equally desire to live. Otherwise, this episode only demonstrates that those with money at their disposal are 'more equal' than others, doesn't it?

Now, There's a Little Bit of Dragon in Tangs



*This article has been featured*

How Stupid Do You Think I Am? No, Seriously...

I received this poster on the new EZLink card in an email today. In it, there was a proclamation that no deposit was necessary. Naturally, I thought to myself - huh, how could they sustain this without a card deposit in money-mad, errr... greedy, errr... profit-driven Singapore.

Then, on closer inspection, I discovered it was the TRAVEL DEPOSIT they were talking about. Ohhh... The $5 'cost-of-the-card' fee still applies but the $3 holding amount is no more? Good news then.

But what? I have to maintain a $3 minimum balance now? That means on the old card I can still travel with 10 cents' value but now I need $3.10 instead? So in effect, the $3 Travel Deposit STILL applies lah - it's just that it will be reflected in the actual stored value (ie. gives you the impression you have more money than you are actually allowed to use)...

So, basically, for the old card, you go to the counter, hand over $15 and receive your card with a stored value of $7, ALL of which you can use for travel. Now, for the new card, you go to the counter, hand over $15 and receive your card which SHOWS $10 but of which you can use only $7. The difference is whether you SEE the $3 Travel Deposit or not.

Sheesh! Come on EZLink, don't spin this as a gimmick. Just say it as it is - $3 Travel Deposit Now Changed To $3 Minimum Balance. Don't insult my intelligence with crap notices like these, ok?

But wait, there's more! (*like a late-night informercial*)

This $3 minimum balance only applies for MRT travel? The minimum balance for bus travel fluctuates depending on where I get on and where the service ends? Wow, this just gets better doesn't it.

Now, I would like to see how many commuters are going to be left stranded when they change buses only to discover that they don't have enough value left to take the next bus and continue on their journey...

Happy New Year Everyone



*This article has been quoted*