Advertisement

GE2015 COMMENT: Should we really ban party political films?

Singapore Democratic Party's "Pappy Washing Powder" video. (YouTube screengrab)

Kirsten Han is a Singaporean blogger, journalist and filmmaker. She is also involved in the We Believe in Second Chances campaign for the abolishment of the death penalty. A social media junkie, she tweets at @kixes. The views expressed are her own.

Would you buy Pappy Washing Powder? According to the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), who made an ad for it, it’s unrivalled in its ability to make everything white, erasing transparency and democracy off a T-shirt.

The Media Development Authority (MDA), though, is less amused by the YouTube video, deeming it a party political film disallowed by the Films Act.

That the film is party political is not in question – the SDP clearly has something to say about their rival party. But these videos by the People’s Action Party (PAP) have not been deemed to be disallowed party political films.

It’s a strange decision: the PAP videos introducing their new faces for the upcoming election is no less political – and for partisan purposes – than the SDP’s tongue-in-cheek jab reference to long-standing criticisms of the PAP. Without any satisfactory explanation, Singaporeans can only conclude that there are double standards at play.

But I wouldn’t argue that we should disallow the PAP’s films either. Instead, I think we should remove this rule completely.

According to the MDA, the law is there to “ensure that political debate in Singapore is conducted in a responsible and dignified manner, and not by using the film medium to sensationalise serious issues in a biased or emotional manner.”

Yet why has it been deemed that films in particular are a threat to the responsible and dignified conduct of political debate? It makes no sense: issues can be sensationalised in a variety of ways. To single out films as a unique medium for this problem is to not understand how political communications – or any communication, really – works.

Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean recently lashed out at an Instagram post by Workers’ Party Member of Parliament Sylvia Lim. Many Singaporeans found his comments immature and below the belt, and he was criticised for them. There was no need for a law prohibiting political responses to Instagram posts – or prohibiting politicians from posting on Instagram altogether – to ensure a dignified political debate. Citizens were more than capable for recognising a swipe when they saw one and making their own judgements.

While we would prefer to see positive campaigning where each political party sets forth its best ideas and policies, the fact is that negative campaigning and criticism of opponents is seen in politics everywhere. It’s also not invalid for there to be some irreverence, particularly towards a party that has wielded so much power for such a long – it’s actually pretty good to be able to poke through that aura of elitism and authority once in awhile, so that we don’t end up putting any party on a pedestal.

In this day and age, politics and elections are fought just as much online and on social media as on the ground and in the newspapers. YouTube videos are going to simply establish themselves as a part of campaigning and discourse – to attempt to stifle that is also a disservice to political debate.