 Print Article
|
Such films, which would be sanctioned under an amended Films Act, could include factual documentaries, recordings of actual events and biographies.
The Government announced this yesterday as part of its cautious acceptance of two-thirds of the recommendations made by a council it appointed to study the impact of new media.
The report of the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (Aims) covered four areas: e-engagement, online political content, cyber-safety for the young and defamation laws relating to Web content hosts.
The subject of party political films was raised because the current wide-ranging ban on such films can be circumvented by uploading the films online.
In some areas, the Government's response to the 13-member council represented a tentative opening up. On the topic of engaging netizens, Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Lee Boon Yang signalled a 'mindset change' in a Government that had previously kept cyber chatter at arm's length.
The Government is now 'fully into e-engagement', he said, although for now it will limit its outreach to portals set up by its feedback unit Reach. It would also reply selectively to forum letters on local mainstream media websites.
On other areas, such as the political films, Dr Lee said the Government would stick with certain rules as a commitment to 'rational' debate or as 'symbolic statement of our society's values', even if such rules are difficult to enforce in the fast-changing world of the Internet.
What would get the green light as early as March, according to him, are films that are 'not sensationalistic, not dramatised, (but) factual documentaries of events held in accordance with the law'.
The point of the distinction, the Minister explained in response to questions from the media, is to maintain 'rational, objective' political debate and 'protect society' from debate that is 'given to emotional outbursts (and) based on distorted presentation of issues'.
The change is in line with Aims' recommendation that the blanket ban on party political films in Section 33 of the Films Act be liberalised in stages. The section could eventually be repealed if 'indeed there is responsible and accountable use of (the film) medium to advance public political discourse', he added.
The advisory panel on party political films will be chaired by Mr Richard Magnus, a retired Senior District Judge, and will be made up of prominent, non-partisan citizens as suggested by Aims.
Films approved by the panel may be shown by political parties as part of their Internet election advertising.
Under new rules, they can also advertise using podcasts, vodcasts, blogs and other new media tools in election campaigns.
While some leeway has now been given on Section 33, Dr Lee said the Government will not decriminalise the making of party political films in general.
It also turned down Aims' suggestion that it spell out clearly the reasons for a ban on a film considered to be 'against the public interest' under Section 35 of the Films Act.
That section of the Act empowers the minister to prohibit a film. It has been enacted only once, when a documentary on former political detainee Said Zahari was banned two years ago.
Dr Lee said Section 35 is needed to deal with 'harmful videos' like Fitna - a film produced by a Dutch film-maker that attacked Islam - indicating that race and religion are the issues here. He made clear that films that may be banned under Section 35 'will not be party political films'.
On the subject of protecting minors from violent and other harmful Net content, an annual fund and education taskforce will be set up as suggested by Aims.
The Government also promised to look into giving online content hosts some immunity in cases where their users are sued for defamatory comments.
When contacted, Aims chairman Cheong Yip Seng said he believed the recommendations accepted by the Government, such as on e-engagement and the partial liberalisation of Section 33, will 'greatly expand the political space for Singaporeans'.
He felt the rejected proposals 'do not add up to be a significant inhibition to the liberalisation of our political system', and that the Government prefers to open up at a slower pace than Aims had thought it should.
More reports: Prime
