Bill too sweeping and vague,
say MPs
Straits Times
Feb 28, 1998
SEVERAL MPs yesterday spoke out against the government's
move to ban political films and videos, saying
that the proposed legislation was too broad and restrictive, and would
stifle political debate and artistic expression here.
Opposition MPs hit out at the Bill, seeing it as yet another move to "kill off" political activity here and suppress the opposition.
Four Nominated MPs also spoke against the ban, asking why the Bill had been drafted so broadly that it might cover just about any film that made a comment on local political issues.
Three PAP MPs -- Mr Chew Heng Ching (East Coast GRC), Dr Yaacob Ibrahim (Jalan Besar GRC) and Dr Toh See Kiat (Aljunied GRC) -- also voiced their concern about the lack of a clear definition of what a political film was.
But they supported the move, saying that political advertising and the use of political videos or films would hamper serious debate on national issues, making it no different from "selling soap or detergent".
Speaking in support of the ban, Dr Yaacob recounted his experience of election campaigns in the US, where some politicians had used political advertisements which distorted the issues to sway the voters.
But like many of the others who spoke, he thought the Bill could have been "clearer and more precise".
A general concern raised by almost all those who spoke against the Bill was summed up by NMP Zulkifli Baharudin, who said the new legislation was "sweeping and vague".
He argued that the ban would "deny opposition parties one way to reach out to the electorate and inform them about their political platforms".
He added that since the PAP already had many ways to disseminate its message via pro-government newspapers and state-owned radio and television companies, it was unnecessary to deny opposition parties the chance to redress this imbalance through political videos. With the courts, the Internal Security Act and the Religious Harmony Act, he added, there were already adequate provisions to prevent the clandestine making and distribution of films which might cause instability, racial disharmony, panic or rumour-mongering.
Echoing these sentiments, NMP Simon Tay urged the Government to reconsider the ban, saying that, instead of striving towards greater political maturity and allowing people to discern for themselves, the new law was moving in the wrong direction by trying to "shield Singaporeans like children".
He pointed out that the legitimacy and validity of any election victory by the PAP depended heavily on there being competition between political parties in free and fair elections, and to achieve this, the maximum leeway for political speech should be allowed.
He suggested that, rather than have a blanket ban on all political films, a citizens' panel should be set up to license and approve such films, in the same way that all other films were vetted. Limits could be set on their cost, length and distribution.
Taking up the issue later, NMP Claire Chiang argued that the Bill might give too much power to government officials to ban films. She said: "I do not believe that our top leaders are intolerant or afraid of criticisms. They can hold their own in any debate against any of Singapore's detractors.
"That makes me all the more perplexed why this Bill needs to have such a broad definition of political films. Is it not giving unnecessarily broad powers to bureaucrats who will want to err on the side of caution and end up banning any social commentary here?"
She warned that the maximum fine of $100,000 for infringing the ban could harm Singapore's efforts to promote the arts, cripple creative efforts, and stifle legitimate and constructive commentary.
NMP Shriniwas Rai feared that the ban would "send the wrong signal to Singaporeans, that the government was becoming less tolerant of political dissent", especially since the penalties were higher than those for more serious crimes.
Joining in the debate later, opposition MP Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir) said the ban was aimed at penalising the opposition, as a fine of $2000 for infringement was adequate to bar an individual from contesting a general election for five years.
He argued that Singaporeans needed to hear more than just the PAP point of view on national issues, and that the ban on political films would discourage the development of a greater sense of political awareness among Singaporeans. "This new Bill will give young citizens the impression that discussing opposition politics is something to be avoided, just like obscene films," he said.
Agreeing, Non-Constituency MP J.B. Jeyaretnam said that the legislation was "unnecessary", but in line with the PAP's efforts over the last 30 years to suppress political debate or dissent.