Our Films Act is surprisingly retrograde in this respect. Section 33 bans the 'making, distribution and exhibition' of party political films. This blanket prohibition extends beyond the Internet to all forms of film.

As a matter of principle, this prohibition is unhealthy for both voters and politicians. Voters should be given maximum exposure to their political figures, to best enable us to make the most informed decisions at the ballot box. Politicians, in turn, will benefit from having an additional medium to communicate their message to the electorate.

Doubtless, the contest of political ideas will involve polemic from competing viewpoints. While party political films will seldom be fair or objective, the Government needs to trust its citizens to distinguish wheat from chaff. After all, is that not what democracy is about? We should not trap ourselves in the self-fulfilling prophecy that Singaporeans are not ready for rigorous political debate.

Principle aside, the above provision of the Films Act is a glaring anachronism that does not take into account the advance of the Internet. This law is ineffective against films posted on sites such as YouTube and Google, and several banned 'party political films' can be found on these channels. Unenforceable laws diminish the respectability of the legal framework, and should not be on the books.

Mr Cheong Yip Seng, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society, recently pointed out that Japan and South Korea are two countries that still exercise control over political films. Perhaps it is telling that together with Singapore, these countries are in a small minority of developed democracies that do so.

Choo Zheng Xi