Talk:Censorship in Singapore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Censorship in Singapore is part of SGpedians' Resources An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore. To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is also under the scope of WikiProject Singaporean Arts and Entertainment.

Isn't press release in the public domain and not copyrighted? --Vsion 18:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

1 Law
2 Jawbreaker sentence
3 R-21
4 Singlish on banned on broadcast media?
5 First Paragraph
6 Justification
7 MDA's official guidelines

[edit] Law

Is there access to the law about this? The anecdotal items are alright but we need to view this in context of what the law says and how it's enforced. gren グレン ^? 04:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The law is online, just dig in. I added some exact quotes from the Films Act, but a quick search didn't find anything regarding the PELU. Jpatokal 12:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jawbreaker sentence

WTF is this trying to say? Ironically, Malaysia's state-run RTM 1 & 2 (RTM 2 had since been omitted due to her broadcast of foreign copyrighted programmes, as agreed by the Singaporean and Malaysian authorities in early 2000s) do for a period of time broadcast programmes in Cantonese, which are not meant for viewers in Singapore, who however owns the ability to receive the TV signals; Hong Kong's TVB, broadcasting in Cantonese, is now available on cable, although TV3 is not (TVB is still available in Malaysia via Astro satellite services). Jpatokal 09:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] R-21

The article as is isn't quite correct, as the R-21 rating is rarely used for major Hollywood features. Most Hollywood movies get lower ratings (so they get a wider audience) but are usually significantly cut in the process. Jpatokal 03:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singlish on banned on broadcast media?

The article notes without citation: "The use of the local English-based creole Singlish is also forbidden in all broadcast media." This contradicts Singlish#Television, which lists several television shows which use Singlish. Could somebody please provide a reference regarding the forbidden nation of Singlish on TV? If not, I'd suggest deleting that sentence. Patiwat 17:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Singlish is not banned, for no legislation exists to support that claim. Rather, it is discouraged, sometimes from above (the govenment), below (the viewers), or within (self-censorship). Hence, Singlish does appear on television, although not as prevalant as some would have liked.--Huaiwei 09:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think programs are banned from being broadcast predominantly in Singlish...the same way dialects are. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Paragraph

"Compared to most western countries, there are more severe censorship restrictions in Singapore on political content, especially in the mass media and the press, but these restrictions are justified by the government as necessary to maintain racial harmony, peace and order given Singapore's history of racial and religious conflicts."

I do not understand how censoring political content can help maintain racial harmony, peace and order. How about the freedom of choosing your "religion"? And what about "pornography"? The only thing that is "passable" could be the "racial content", but only if it's "racism". Just my two cents (and my freedom of speech)

1) Political content:[1] "The leading newspaper of Singapore, the Straits Times is often perceived as a propaganda newspaper because it rarely criticises government policy, and covers little about the opposition. This perception is, furthermore, due to the fact that the parent of the paper, Singapore Press Holdings, is a government-linked corporation." 2) Religion nowadays censored in Singapore? There isn't even clear evidence now in the 21st Century

[edit] Justification

The article needs a section on how the Garmin justifies its use of censorship. Anybody got juicy quotes or sites? Jpatokal 11:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Huaiwei got the ball rolling, so now the section is there. Jpatokal 03:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No prob, although I feel this topic has lots of room for improvement. I find that it seems to drift from one extreme to another depending on which section we are reading....one may discuss extensively on the official governmental stand, then another section talks about nothing but criticisms from liberal groups!--Huaiwei 11:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ideally the first section should describe the why from both points of view, and the rest should just be factual listings of what is/has been censored. Jpatokal 12:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

But isnt that artificially limiting? There is much scope on discussion for each form of censorship, and there is also scope for comparisons between the various mediums, or over time. Arent these possibilities for a more comprehensive article?--Huaiwei 12:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I'm just saying that the opinions (point of views) should be kept to the first section as much as possible. Jpatokal 02:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)