Under the newest Public Order Act, every single protest, even a one-person protest, will require a permit (Which I assume the Govt. has no intention of granting).
It used to be 5 or more, now its not even one?
The PAP, which, in the 2006 Singapore general election won 82 out of the 84 seats in Parliament even though it only got 66.6% of the total votes cast also amended the Films act to prohibit the filming of illegal public events - so the media cannot even show protests or any such gathering to the public.
Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts, Lui Tuck Yew in Parliament, on amendments to the Films Act:
“We should not prevent people from recording video clips of political events held in accordance with the law or from making factual documentary videos of political issues and events."
But who will decide who gets to film what? The courts?
“Films with animation and dramatisation and distort what is real or factual will be disallowed, as the intent of the amendments is to ensure that these films do not undermine the seriousness of political debate.”
"..distorting what is real or factual.." could really be interpreted any which way. But is this of a major significance to Singapore?
Cartoon of the news coverage on the AIG bonuses:
Oh yeah and click the title for a link.
Good post.
ReplyDeleteYou're right about "..distorting what is real or factual.." being interpreted in many different ways, it is all a matter of opinion. But it sounds like anything anti-government would be distorting the facts in this case.
Great cartoon, too. It appears that nine of the ten executives who received those bonuses has given them back. How nice of them.
The restriction of protest only to those who have a permit sounds ominous to me. If the history of the PAP is anything to go by I'm guessing very few people will be granted permits, particularly if they are seen as real competition to the government.
ReplyDeleteDespite Lee no longer being Singapore's leader it seems many of his ideas etc continue in his party. This restriction of public opposition to the government shows Singapore could be considered a competitive authoritarian state (Levitsky and Way in course readings). Opposition is not blatantly banned or repressed but is prevented in a more "sneaky" way and given legitmacy through law.
The one-party state of Singapore seems likey to continue for a while yet!!