ASAS does not want Pink Dot to ‘support the freedom to love’

From ‘Advertising watchdog asks Cathay to remove phrase in Pink Dot ad’, 9 July 2017, article in CNA

The Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS) has advised Cathay Organisation to remove a phrase in an advertisement at Cathay Cineleisure mall promoting an upcoming Pink Dot event.

The phrase in question reads: “Supporting the freedom to love.” In a statement on Friday (Jun 9), ASAS said this “may affect public sensitivities due to the issues at hand”.

“The rest of the advertisement may otherwise remain,” said the advertising watchdog, noting that “the Pink Dot advertisement at Cineleisure technically does not breach the general principle on family values in the Singapore Code of Advertising Practice”.

…The ad – which went up on an escalator at the mall on May 31 – drew complaints from people in the “We are against Pinkdot in Singapore” Facebook group, who are opposed to the annual rally held in support of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

‘Freedom’ and ‘love’ are two words in the English language that inspire fierce, positive emotions, among other provocative words like ‘home’, ‘God’ and ‘bacon’. But link them together and colour the phrase pink and you start to rile the censors. This coming from the same folks who intervened when a casual diner featured barenaked butts on its advertisements. Just when you thought they only clamp down on bra ads at bus stops or objects that look like vaginas. Suddenly, the freedom to love is no longer a natural human trait, but an unwelcome disease.

‘Free love’ means a different thing entirely, of course, implying mass orgies and promiscuity. So I’m not sure if ASAS is mistaking one term for the other. Those on the side of the Church complain that loving another of the same sex defiles the marriage ‘covenant’ in the Bible. Yet they keep silent on the ‘freedom’ of paedophile priests to ‘love’ their altar boys. Or the freedom to love more than one woman at a time, enough to engage in mistress-stashing, or better still, polygamy.

Not that removing a single phrase makes any difference to the anti Pink Dot lynch mob. These guys would freak out if they so much as see a pink car, a rainbow cake, or a goddamn flamingo. Now if they see a Milo Van round the corner they would immediately think of Pink Dot ambassador Nathan Hortono, incite their brethren to spit out the nourishing chocolatey drink before it turns them to barstool-humping pink-tongued homosexuals.

If someone from the WAAPD clan decides to scrawl the word ‘faggot’ on the banner, would it get the same heat as someone writing ‘terrorist’ next to a cartoon lady wearing a hijab? Cheer a vandal for homophobic slurring and you get off scot-free. Do the same publicly for a racist and you would expect a late night visit from the police, in addition to a nationwide ‘anyhow-hantam’ witchhunt leaving a trail of companies denying on Facebook that you were ever their employee.

 

Drink don’t drive ad difficult to understand

From ‘Simple language works best in public campaign advertisements’, 30 Jan 2017, ST Forum

(Michael Loh Toon Seng): An advertisement by the Singapore Police Force, Singapore Road Safety Council and Sgcarmart.com reads: “Get a ride home. Don’t drive to drink, and you will never drink and drive.”

It took me a while to figure out what the message was. At first, I thought it was saying that if you drive to drink, you will never drink and drive again because you will surely die in a road accident.

Why didn’t the ad just say that to avoid having to drive after drinking, don’t drive? A plain “don’t drink and drive” would also have sufficed, as there is strength in simplicity.

It is well and clever to use catchy phrases in ads, but if people cannot grasp a message’s meaning at the first reading, they will likely ignore it. Messages in public campaigns should use plain, easy-to-understand language so that they get the right message across.

The current anti-drunk-driving slogan may be tongue-twistingly catchy as “She Sells Seashells”, but breaks the first rule of public communications; it needs to be re-read at least twice. ‘Don’t drive to drink’ on its own already requires some cognitive juggling to interpret as ‘Don’t drive the car to the pub/bar’, while ‘you will never drink and drive’ requires a background understanding that drinking and driving is bad. There are limits to how you want to play around with words and puns in such a campaign, and while simplicity would work for the first time reader or drinker, people would soon grow tired of repetitive warnings and it’ll just become naggy after a while.

In 2011, the Traffic Police went for the jugular and presented the drink-driving message as an obituary, hoping to shock people into abandoning their cars and alcohol altogether. While the content was painfully obvious, some found it in bad taste.

anti-drink-drive-obituary-600-66500

Like visuals of oozing cancer on cigarette packs, the authorities also tried to pump up the gore factor, with a 2009 campaign that looks straight out of a slasher flick. It may have been too ‘PG’ for some parents’ liking.

3553506640_d5c1b27f13

So how do you find the middle ground between in-your-face viscera and pedantic finger-wagging? How about a morality tale of killing your best friend and living the rest of your life in eternal regret as an amputee in a wheelchair? This 2005 ad reminds boozers that it’s not just your life at stake when you DnD.

In real life, though, a different story pans out if you happen to be a Mediacorp celebrity. A decade back, Christopher Lee was jailed 4 weeks for drunk driving. Today, he’s still promoting bak kwa during CNY and likely to be given a Lifetime Achievement Award despite his past drunken indiscretion. Drink and drive, and all is forgiven.

Or a light-hearted approach with cute doggies? Check. Though some would say it trivialises a serious crime.

Not saying that such campaigns are entirely futile. The number of drink-driving cases reportedly fell in the first half of 2016, though that could also be attributed to the Government’s overall crackdown on public alcohol consumption, enforcement, the rise of private car hires, ride-sharing and bars offering valet services, or even ‘drink-counting’ apps. 

So, like the fact that smoking kills, everyone already knows that drunk-driving does too, but it’ll take more than blunt public announcements to steer the message home. Maybe the Traffic Police can turn their attention to campaigns urging people to actually drive in the right direction on roads too, like ‘Drive on the Right Side of the Road, or we’ll See you on the Other Side’. Hur. Hur.

 

NTUC cigarette vending machine reminds smokers of cigarettes

From ‘Cigarette dispenser an ad in itself’, 28 Mar 16, ST Forum

(Liu I-Chun): In having a cigarette machine, it seems FairPrice is disingenuous in fulfilling the letter of the law but not the spirit, and dressing it up as a productivity improvement (“Tobacco display ban: FairPrice pilots opaque dispenser“; March 17).

The mere presence of these prominent dispenser machines, sans branding notwithstanding, reminds people of cigarette availability. After all, advertising is, in essence, association, implication and conditioning.

Under Article 13 of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, it is recommended that vending machines be banned “because they constitute, by their very presence, a means of advertising and promotion”

FairPrice says that it “supports the Government’s efforts in protecting the health of Singaporeans”. If this is so, the proper thing to do would be to stop selling cigarettes at all FairPrice outlets and convenience stores, like what the CVS drugstore chain in the United States did in 2014 (“US chain to end tobacco sale”; Feb 6, 2014).

Unfortunately, FairPrice’s latest venture suggests that it has no intention of giving up this easy money-spinner, which runs counter to its corporate philosophy of doing good for the community.

FairPrice should adhere to WHO guidelines by not using tobacco vending machines and scale down tobacco sales.

NTUC is willing to take shark’s fin off the shelves but can’t let go of sin-tax generating cigarettes, hiding the goods behind a drab looking machine and making it tedious for smokers to obtain their fix. The reason behind banning shark’s fin was that the organisation was committed to being ‘socially responsible’. If a supermarket were truly ‘socially responsible’, it wouldn’t just stop selling tobacco products, but alcohol, snacks and carbonated drinks as well.

In other words, a supermarket with a moral compass would go bankrupt, and NTUC, by setting itself as an exemplar in ethical consumption, has put itself in a quandary with the cigarette dispenser program. It’s like placing the candy jar on a higher shelf to discourage a kid from grabbing it. It only makes the object more desirable to the addict. By making cigarettes slightly less accessible, it also encourages the smoker to purchase more packs from the machine so that he can skip the hassle the next time round. So, how ‘socially responsible’ is NTUC when it spends money on cigarette dispensing technology, and then allows the media to run a story that practically says ‘Cigarettes for sale!’ all over it?

In any case, I suspect even banning tobacco from supermarkets wouldn’t deter the hardcore smoker. We may have banned cigarette ads since 1973 but that didn’t stop the industry from seducing their clients through subliminal cues. Malboro’s disposable lighter ads, with their epic Magnificant Seven soundtrack, were banned from all cinemas in 1984. In 1986, ‘travel’ ads by the likes of Peter Stuyvesant were scrutinised by the Ministry for alluding to smoking. Thankfully, we haven’t resorted to censoring movies featuring lead actors puffing away in style.

Scare tactics with disgusting pictures of charred lungs on cigarette packs didn’t work. Neither did the public service ads featuring victims of lung cancer talking through an eviscerated windpipe. Nevermind cancer, deformed babies or infertility, people continue to puff anyway, and simply keeping visual cues away from them is inadequate to curb nicotine cravings. You don’t need a cigarette vending machine to remind people of cigarettes. A familiar smell, a particular place, a random memory of a specific event or person may all trigger the urge to smoke, whether it’s the decorative alpine vistas that look no different from a Ricola herbal candy box, or the piss and vomit-filled back valley of the club where you had your virgin smoke.

Some countries have in fact banned cigarette vending machines altogether, England and  Malaysia included. And here we are introducing it to the world like it’s some breakthrough in retail automation. NTUC, if you care for the smokers in Singapore as much as you care for sharks swimming in the oceans thousands of miles away, do the ‘socially responsible’ thing and cease sale altogether. If you don’t want the investment to go to waste, simply substitute by stocking it with another vice product. Alcohol, R21 DVDs, maybe even chewing gum perhaps?

I Love Children campaign is ‘scaremongering’

From ‘Fertility ads give birth to controversy’, 5 Feb 2016, article by Tan Weizhen, ST

A voluntary welfare group advocating early parenthood has defended an advertising campaign featuring four controversial cartoons.

The ads – which show sperm and eggs in situations such as rowing together in a boat or playing darts – were placed in train stations by I Love Children (ILC) this week, with slogans like “Even the best marksman could miss the target” and “Women are born with a finite number of eggs”.

The group hopes they will encourage people to conceive earlier while they are more fertile, but they have been criticised by some members of the public for being distasteful and insensitive.

Women’s rights group the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) has called the campaign “scaremongering“, saying it might have an emotional impact on women who might be infertile or who have had miscarriages.

i-love-children-ad-10-data

It’s not just married folks without children who’ll be irked by the naggy tone of the ads. Even those with curious kids who’ve seen the ad will have trouble explaining to them what a sperm is and where it comes from, before they start asking you whether those two happy creatures are new Pokemons.

Like all evangelical fertility campaigns, I Love Children only presents a one-sided rosy picture of childbearing, and with it being launched in perfect timing with CNY, it’ll only add more fuel to the fire for those having to face the traditional interrogation by pesky relatives during visiting. This sudden urgency to bump up baby stats is a far cry from the ‘anti-natalist’ movement in the 70’s, where you’re advised to ‘take your time’ before settling down. If you ‘take your time’ these days, you’ll get parents giving you dirty looks assuming you’re a ‘children-hater’. You can ‘take your time’ to choose the right primary school, the right career, the right house, but when it comes to babies, it’s ‘WTF are you waiting for already!’

Screen Shot 2016-02-05 at 6.29.00 AM

From ‘Fertility and the Family:An overview of Pro-natalist Population Policies in Singapore’ Theresa Wong, Branda S.A Yeoh

To be fair, it’s hard to come up with a fertility campaign with the right nuance. Some mild threatening is needed for it to be effective. Like ‘Children – Life would be empty without them’. This would make sense in the 90’s. Today, if you don’t have children of your own, there’s always Netflix and line dancing to fill the gaping void in your otherwise lonely, miserable existence.

In 2013, some NTU students came up with a ‘Singaporean Fairytale’, which featured ‘negative stereotypes’ in the form of a Golden Goose laying eggs, with the terrifying warning that your ‘egg making device may become rusty and old’. Again, the usual scare tactics of that timebomb ticking away in your oven. Time to put a bun in it!

In 2012, Mentos created ‘National Night’, urging you to ‘perform your civic duty’, and tapping your partner’s body like an ‘EZ-link card’. Cringeworthy, but for different reasons.

ILC, you don’t need to tell me what I already know. Jubilee Babies, SG50 baby bonuses, enhanced parental benefits. We already have agents out there, intentionally or unintentionally, promoting procreation for free ALL THE TIME. Not just the Government, parents and kaypoh aunties, but every father mother son who’s ever posted a montage of their bundle of flippin’ joy on Facebook. I’m reminded of putting my sperm to good use everytime I send a Whatsapp message to a friend with his baby as his icon.  If I see a baby dressed like Obi Wan Kenobi, I get the urge to impregnate the nearest womb I see. When I see a mini-series about families with 8 kids it gives me a newfound passion for harem-making.

So there’s no need for pro-lifers to hire graphic designers to draw cartoon sperm and ova rowing a boat, doing pole vaults or doing the Lambada to give us the warm, tingly  ‘AWWWWW..SO CUTE..LET’S HAVE SEX NOW’ moment. In fact, these ads do the exact opposite. Like a badgering aunty telling you so-and-so just had a fourth kid and still got that promotion at work. It saps the romance right out of any form of sexual intercourse, oral, vaginal or otherwise. Unless you people are telling me ‘Screw romance and do it like they do on the Discovery Channel!’

In short, money wasted, which could have been put to better use helping people struggling with kids so badly they resort to giving them up for adoption, accidental teenage mums thinking of throwing their neonates down the rubbish chute, or going into some fund for assisted reproduction for desperate couples. If you Love Children so much, help children that are living NOW, not play bedroom Peeping Tom, matchmaker, and midwife.

This is all we need.

GrabTaxi’s sexist ‘Love Boobs?’ campaign

From ‘Grabtaxi apologise for ‘insensitive’ breast cancer awareness campaign’, 8 Oct 2015, article by Xabryna Kek, CNA

Car-hailing app GrabTaxi has issued an apology on Thursday (Oct 8), following backlash over its breast cancer awareness campaign. Since the launch of the #GrabitBeatit campaign, GrabTaxi customers have received app notifications with the message “LOVE BOOBS? So does cancer.” The slogan has also been plastered on cars running the GrabCar services.

Some netizens did not take kindly to the tagline. “It’s unfortunate that your Breast Cancer campaign is communicated in a sexist way that objectifies women,” Twitter user Faizal Hamssin wrote.

Boob, I mean book, a GrabTaxi cab now!

Boob, I mean book, a GrabTaxi cab now! (pic:Sunday Times, 11 oct 15)

The hashtag for the campaign reads #GrabItBeatIt, which sounds like the jingle for a bongo drumset than breast cancer. An SMU Associate Professor of Marketing lashed out at the use of the word ‘boobs’ (Grabtaxi’s cheeky campaign on cancer awareness backfires, 11 Oct 15, Sunday Times), as if  changing the slogan to ‘love BREASTS’ would make much of a difference. Besides, the ‘breast’ pun is already taken, by a famous fast food burger chain with a history of ‘objectifying’ parts of the female anatomy.

We love your buns too

In 2012, The Singapore Cancer Society launched the cringeworthy ‘Treasure the Breast Things in Life’ campaign, so GrabTaxi isn’t the only one capitalising on our affection for ‘breasty’ things. ‘Breast’ puns are a tad overused. Cue ‘derogatory’ terms instead.

I guess ‘LOVE B(.)(.)BS?’ is deemed offensive to some women because it’s the kind of porny clickbait that is designed to draw horny men. If there’s anything wrong with the ad it’s that the target audience (males) seems questionable, as most females who chance upon a ‘love boobs?’ ad is likely to dismiss it as one of those spam links to online sex shops selling dodgy bust-enhancement creams. It should also be more inclusive, since breast cancer affects men too, and renamed as ‘LOVE BOOBS AND MOOBS?’, though I’m sure a lot more people love the former than the latter.

As for the physical act of ‘grabbing’, there is, in fact, some grabbing involved when it comes to breast cancer screening, whether it’s done gently via self-examination in the mirror, or by a mammogram that literally clamps your tits together like a medieval torture rack used by misogynistic zealots to force confessions out of women accused of witchcraft. If you’re disturbed (or worse, tickled) by the phrase ‘Beat It’, it just means you’ve descended too far into the darkest realms of S&M.

There’s no shame in admitting that the vast majority of guys love breasts. It’s a shame, however, that people who accuse such ads of being sexist and ‘insensitive’ ignore all the dick jokes done at our expense and other campaigns that mock the male anatomy, like this ‘Clean Your Balls’ ad for example. Making fun of testicles – now THAT’S really hitting below the belt.

Like breast cancer, testicular cancer is no joke of course. But if you had a ‘Love Balls?’ campaign instead, I doubt social media would go all ‘tits-up’ over GrabTaxi’s ad. Somehow ‘Loving boobs’ is offensive, but ‘Playing with balls’ is hilarious. No wonder Ikea never considered raising a meatball charity event to draw our attention to the scourge of testicular cancer. Yes, cancer loves your balls too. Cancer is a sneaky bi-pervert, goddamit!

Allow me jog your mammary-I mean- memory: Some years back, we had a ‘Lift Your Skirt’ campaign for cervical cancer, which had some folks shaking their heads all the way home after spotting the ads at bus stops, because they can’t imagine anything beyond the message than a call for women to expose their panties to men. Naughtiness seems to be the norm if you want Singaporeans to, well, keep abreast of killer diseases. Whatever works to grab your attention, I say, whether it affects the health of your boob, your cervix or your dangling balls.

Then there’s this fun way of raising funds for AIDS in Japan especially for people who ‘love boobs’. I suppose the reason why people don’t complain that this ‘objectifies women’ is because the recipients of the groping work as sex objects for a living.

Well, thanks to GrabTaxi, I’m forced to interpret the lyrics to the Black Eyed Peas’ ‘My Humps (my lovely lady lumps)’ in a totally different light. Slogan theme song, anyone?

PAP posters displayed next to Taoist altar

From ‘Mini PAP posters taken down after queries from SDP:ELD’, 5 Sept 2015, article by Koh Swee Fang Valerie in Today

A day after Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan cried foul over miniature posters promoting the People’s Action Party’s team for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC being plastered around Ghim Moh Market and Food Centre, the posters have been taken down.

In response to queries from TODAY, the ELD said that it understands these posters had been put up by the merchant association in the area.

“The association has since taken the posters down,” said an ELD spokesperson. “ELD would like to remind everyone, including candidates and members of the public, that the display of election posters and banners must abide by the rules set out in the Parliamentary Elections (Election Advertising) Regulations.”

During an election, the Returning Officer authorises candidates and their election agents to display election posters and banners for campaigning. “No person shall display or cause to be displayed in any public place during the campaign period any poster or banner without the authorisation of the Returning Officer,” added the spokesperson.

In a Facebook post yesterday, Dr Chee said that his team – which is also contesting Holland-Bukit Timah GRC – had alerted the ELD to these miniature posters, after coming across them on a walkabout at the food centre.

“We… saw miniature posters of the PAP Holland-Bukit Timah team pasted all over the food centre – even at an Taoist altar,” he said. “The SDP team is also campaigning for every vote but, please, let’s have some decency and not paste our photos where people worship.”

Eat, Pray, Vote

There is a specific list of places where you’re not allowed to stick posters in the Election Handbook. These include on an ERP gantry, traffic sign boards and stalls within a hawker centre. Not in this list are places of worship, between the grills of your front gate, or behind public toilet cubicle doors so you can ruminate on your party of choice while taking a shit.

So technically, millionaire pastor Kong Hee and his ilk could flash PM Lee’s face all over the megachurch premises without committing an actual offence. You could be queuing up at the ATM and have a group of MPs on a poster smiling at you by the side while you withdraw your cash from the machine. You could be buying groceries and have someone covertly slipping a mini handout into your bags at the cashier. You could be out jogging on a windy day and one of these discarded flyers could be blown smack into your face. The PAP, as our PM Lee promised, will be ‘For you, With you’. Every single day. Everywhere. Like an overprotective girlfriend who refuses to leave you alone.

Some posters are already stuck on traffic signs as we speak, and the police should really clamp down on these as they pose quite a distraction to motorists. Imagine cruising along the streets and seeing one of the Opposition’s placards asking hard questions about government investments and CPF, or getting awestruck by our PM’s warm glowing face everywhere you turn.  That may be enough to prevent you from checking your blind spot, or spotting an old auntie pushing cardboard against the red light. I wonder if any of the PAP’s posters were placed on U-TURN signs, though.

It’s ironic that as an anchor minister with the Environment portfolio, the Holland-Bukit Timah GRC team leader would endorse such indulgent paper consumption, as if the SG50 flags and paraphernalia still flying about weren’t enough. ‘Poster wars’ between political parties and random vandals have led to the ‘disfigurement’ of the city ever since 1955, where lamp posts, trees and even longkangs (culverts) are not spared from party propaganda.  Up till today, we have people messing up banners or stealing them as collectibles. Maybe we should be thankful to these thieves for relieving us of a serious eyesore. Or maybe it’s the ghost of Yusok, I mean Yusof, Ishak at work.

As for the Holland ward, I saw with my own eyes Vivian Balakrishnan and gang’s faces stuck on the wall between stalls while ordering food at Ghim Moh Temp Hawker centre some days back. Which means PAP has, indirectly, already flouted one of the election guidelines set up by the ELD, merchant association or not. While fashioning PAP candidates as deities next to a religious shrine comes across as a show of disrespect (though not illegal), that didn’t stop contestants from physically entering places of worship during their walkabouts during the last election. Politics and religion shouldn’t mix, of course. That includes holding rallies in conjunction with getais. Neither should politics be mixed with basic necessities like Lunch or Dinner.

Pappy washing powder video is a political film

From ‘MDA reminds parties to not contravene Films Act ahead of General Election’, 17 Aug 15, article by Faris Mokhtar, CNA

The Media Development Authority (MDA) on Monday (Aug 17) said it will not be taking action against the Opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) for releasing a political film, which contravenes the Films Act.

The SDP uploaded two videos as part of its online campaign for the coming General Election. One focused on the local education system, suggesting that the system is stressful and has affected students’ well-being.

The other video is a tongue-in-cheek commercial featuring a made-up washing detergent brand called “Pappy White“. It shows a woman putting clothes printed with words like “transparency” and “democracy” into a washing machine. MDA has classified the video as a political film.

However, the authority said it will not be taking action against the SDP, noting that this is the first such incident. MDA added that parties may not have been fully aware of what is contained in the Films Act.

The authority reminded parties and candidates that they need to ensure that their political films do not contravene the Films Act. MDA also said it will not hesitate to enforce the law should they continue to publish such films.

The Films Act bans the making, import, distribution or screening of “party political films”. However, some films which meet certain criteria can be exempted. These include factual documentaries and manifestos of political parties produced by or on behalf of a political party.

The first ever political film to be shown to public is likely to be 1959’s ‘newsreel’ about PAP electioneering. Opposition parties complained that this was biased towards only one party. Ironically, the same ruling party that came up with the ban decades later could themselves have been breaching the said regulations when they first started out.

SDP’s Pappy washing powder creation has an unlikely connection with Forrest Gump. In 1998, BG George Yeo, then head of the Ministry of Information and the Arts, passed an Amendment which disallowed the distribution and exhibition of ‘political films’. He was convinced that opposition parties had sufficient avenues to disseminate their views. Fellow ‘pappie’ Jacob (Yaacob?) Ibrahim was concerned about the ‘danger’ of digital technology creating false images, as depicted in the movie ‘Forrest Gump’ when Tom Hanks’ titular hero was morphed into a scene with JFK.

Which means you can forget about recreating LKY’s CG clone for a future film after all those actors worthy enough to portray him have died.

Today, our dear George is lauded as PAP’s Internet ‘maverick’, and the Films Act has since been ‘clarified’ to exclude certain types of content from the ban. For example, a film that is a live recording of any event (performance, assembly etc) which does not depict the event, person or situation in a ‘DRAMATIC’ way. An classic example of how this apparent ‘relaxation’ of legislation took effect was the decision to unban Martyn See’s ‘Singapore Rebel’. From the video on Youtube, you see scenes of Chee Soon Juan mobbed to fever pitch by the police and bystanders rabble-rousing. Nope, not the least ‘dramatic’ at all. Another of See’s films, Speakers Cornered, also features CSJ, but was passed uncut with an NC-16 rating because the MDA decrees that you need ‘maturity to discern the intent and message of the film’. No such luck for Tan Pin Pin’s ‘To Singapore With Love’. All the maturity in the world can’t offer you a glimpse of the banned, allegedly manipulative documentary.

Even without ‘dramatic elements’ or ‘animation’, an unedited video of someone telling his life story would still fall afoul of the censors if it ‘undermines public confidence in the Government’, as what happened to another Martyn See work starring ‘ex-leftist’ Lim Hock Siew. Vague terms like ‘dramatic’ or ‘factual’ have no place in the Law when the Authority, or its ‘independent panels’, have the wherewithal to decide what is ‘non-partisan’ and what is ‘political’ regardless of what the Act says. Undermining public confidence in the PAP is exactly what the Pappy washing powder implies, though the MDA failed to point this out as a ‘political’ element for some reason.

We’re so used to Mediacorp ‘current affairs’ programmes featuring Cabinet ministers, such as 2005’s ‘Up Close’, that we forget that these too may potentially breach the Films Act. And there are so many other ‘films’ out there with hidden political ‘agendas’ that get off scot-free. Like a cringeworthy, totally non-partisan Young PAP recruitment video about ‘re-igniting a passion for servant leadership’, which was spared because it did not have ‘animation or dramatic elements’. Others that inevitably fall out of MDA’s radar, including those with song, dance and animation, include:

  1. A homemade tribute video on the PAP’s 60th annivesary, with a soundtrack that wouldn’t be out of place in a Tarantino Western. Pappy Unchained?

2. A Steven Lim monologue urging you to vote PAP. Which the PAP may decide to ban for an entirely different reason.

3. This Taiwanese animation on Chee Soon Juan getting jailed.

4. This multimedia presentation that climaxes with a PAP logo next to a thumbs up. With cool retro 8-bit music.

5. This ‘Friday parody of how wonderful Election Day is.

6. Mr Brown parody on our ‘One Party’ leadership.

Which goes to show how archaic our laws are when it comes to catching up with new media. MDA’s ticking off aside, the Pappy video remains online as we speak, and in the meantime, if you need some legal ‘political’ entertainment, there’s this: