Amendments of Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PMA)

Amendments of familiar Entertainments and Meetings defend (PMA)To whom it may concern,As a dutiful capital of Singaporean citizen who is late concerned with the tidings of our local cunnings industry, I am typography in to exhort the Media Development Authority (MDA) to review the proposed amendments of the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA) that was released on May 12th 2014. I also refer to Ms. corrie Tans fraudicle titled, Art of Censorship in Singapore (The Straits Times, 7 June 2014).I understand that the aforementi stard proposition seeks to institute a co-regulatory p fraudnership with local cunning practiti geniusrs by empowering arts pastime event organisers to classify their own performances whilst adhering to community standards and expectations (MDA, 2014a). Consequently, a radical liberal arts Term Licensing plan which mandates the obligatory training of individual artists from local art companies by the MDA as qualified subject matter assessors for self- variety has been edict.Whilst the general outlook of the express proposal may be soundly meaning in nature as it confers a window peek to MDAs progressive swop toward the relegation of some of its authority over content categorisation to its relevant communities (The Straits Times, 10 June 2014), in this case, the arts to local art practitioners, a closer examination upon the various stratums underlying the scheme has left me passing troubled as m both fundamental assumptions rooted in its theoryion, albeit plainly benign on paper, remains deeply problematic in both(prenominal) practice as well as in spirit.Accordingly, I air that the concepts of self-classification, co- canon, and empowerment of the local arts industry as posited in the late scheme, f exclusivelys on a highly erroneous continuum of prevarication as they have not been veritably demo. The notion of self-classification suggests that local art practitioners argon granted with an autonomous, free -willed, and imperative role of contribution in the development and under taking of the classification guidelines. Yet, much(prenominal) has been reflected early(a)wise in practice as the classification of art works remain quash to the prescribed criterions solely ordained by the MDA, without assembling any(prenominal) prior consultations or discussions with art practitioners (Arts Engage, 2014a). In addition, self-classification implies the absence of censoring wherein art works incorruptly follow a sort out of classification ratings and are never subjected to prohibition. However, the Not Allowed for Ratings category (MDA, 2014c) in other words, a euphemism for censorship runs contradictory to the idea of self-classification. It seems that this natural scheme by MDA is but a reinstatement of the same old perilous template of censorship in Singapore where administration are conceived as the unequivocal arbiters of tastes (McGuigan, 1996), sort of than trusting artists to be ethically, morally, or favorablely responsible, and that of my swearing Singaporeans capacity to pretend an art work critically.Under the principles of classification published in the 2010 shroud by the Censorship Review Committee (CRC Report, 2010), it was stated that classification boundaries essential be set according to community standards determined via an use upment butt against involving the regulator, community, and the industry. This suggests the presence of an open, transparent, and inclusive process of engagement amongst artists, authorities, and members of the in the public eye(predicate) to determine the perimeters of classification as in tandem with MDAs ideals of consultation and working intimately with expertise and perspectives of a wide spectrum of society (MDA, 2014b) and the purported notion of co-regulation. However, this is not reflected in truth as the naked as a jaybird Arts Term Licensing Scheme which edicts artists to be happy by the MDA a s qualified content assessors is but a guise of the state policing the arts by proxy as these content assessors are strictly tethered to executing MDAs rules. or else of creating an unacquainted(p) engagement between art practitioners and the MDA where genuine partnership and shared responsibilities may be treasureed, artists are merely subjugated as extensions of MDAs censorships.This, I suppose is not co-regulation, but a faade for self-censorship. More notably, much(prenominal) a move resembles that of a panopticon surveillance (Foucault, 1977) with MDAs pervasiveness at disciplining and normalizing aesthetical expression on both a macro and micro level by implanting seemingly innocuous content assessors indoors the heart of art companies so that whilst MDAs presence appears to be incognito on the surface, their regulations until now remain executed with stringency. Not only is this highly inimical to ones tasteful innovation and creativity (Arts Engage, 2014b), I beli eve that the headache of non-conformance would fester like an insidious wound that ultimately undermines the development of our arts industry, and on a grandeur scale, the growth of our society as a harmonious whole as it would not be instilled deep down my fellow Singaporeans recognize and acknowledge the varying nuances when it comes to the interpretation of art (Chee Meng, 2014). With such an bigoted perspective that fails to conceive art as an outset for constructive discourse, how therefore can our nation truly blossom into a Global urban center of the Arts as our leaders have envisioned?Further more, it was acknowledged in the 2003 report of Censorship Review Committee that a one-size-fits-all effigy of censorship is increasingly non-viable given the heterogeneous and ever-changing society of Singapore (CRC Report, 2003). Thus, it seems that this new approach by MDA is not only paradoxical, but terribly regressive. Additionally, whilst the MDA has accentuate that the Arts Term Licensing Scheme is optional suggesting that artists have a option in the matter, it appears that this is but a shrewd attempt by the authorities at veiling a false dichotomy to our art practitioners as they are essentially caught in between continuing the present governing where MDA issues all classifications and advisories, or that of a seemingly different system that is inherently the same as the former since content assessors are specially trained to heed MDAs specifications. As such, I question MDAs serious-mindedness at co-regulation and all of its supposed ideals of openness, engagement, inclusiveness, and transparency. In line with the Constitution of the res publica of Singapore which delineates that e real Singaporean citizen possess the rights of freedom of speech (Attorney widely distributeds Chambers, 2010) in this case, the speech is expressed via the modus of art MDAs new scheme appears to be a flagrant violation of that democracy and with it, the con cept of a public sphere (Habermas, 1964) where there an open space that allows for the exploration of ideas free from overbearing restrictions.If our nation is truly a democratic society, why then is the MDA imposing such harsh regulations of self-censorship upon our artists who simply yearns for art as a medium of expression, and that of mine, and my fellow Singaporeans freedom of prize in enjoying art in all its various forms? By qualifying the creations of artists, allowing audiences to be only be granted access to what is deemed as earmark content, and creating a rift of division between content assessors and their colleagues all in the name of public good, is the MDA genuinely protecting social harmony, or is this simply a circumvented attempt at regulating a power birth between us citizens and the state (McGuigan, 1996).In a similar vein, MDAs espoused notion of empowering art practitioners by according them the liberty in deciding the classification of their art works re mains highly contentious as in practice, artists are subjugated to the strict love of MDAs policing mechanisms by proxy and consequently, are renounced of any leeway to utilization their personal liberties. How then are our art practitioners empowered by the new scheme? Not only is this positioning of the Arts Term Licensing Scheme prevaricating to artists, it also misleads the general public into believing that the new scheme should be embraced unequivocally as it seemingly liberates our artists. As such, it seems that this assertion of empowerment is nothing but a surreptitious attempt by the MDA at egregiously slipperiness all of the said problems underlying self-censorship as the scheme constructs a unreal appearance resembling that of a pseudo-public sphere as postulated by Habermas (1964) where decisions seem to be personally dictated by artists (i.e. public) and are seemingly independent of MDAs (i.e. authoritys) intrusiveness. It is thus, disappointing to note that whi lst the MDA advocates values of integrity (MDA, 2014b), such has been demonstrated otherwise in this case.More eminently, the schemes postulated idea that artists are to face harsh punishments including a $5,000 penalty for non-compliance to MDAs regulations simply nullifies any notions of co-regulatory partnership, empowerment, whilst invoking an undercurrent of fear that only aggrandizes self-censorship. This, I believe is tantamount to regulative censorship of punitive state sanction taking on the faade of constitutive censorship (Jansen, 1991) where it appears that our artists are merely self-regulating. With the encroachment of hefty penalties associated with misclassification, and MDAs lack of clarity upon the assessment and evoke processes, what then is of MDAs assistant chief executive, Mr. Christopher Ngs charter that authorities would be reasonable and fair (Chee Meng, 2014) in the evaluation such a situation? Consequently, it also seems that this new scheme has evinced upon an underlying distrusts of art practitioners within our society as if artists are subversive individuals to be soak up away. This, in turn, has perpetuated a fabricated sense of dichotomy of artists versus community, where in truth, our artists and art practitioners are also fellow citizens, parents, heart landers, and are very much part of Singapore and our community at large (Arts Engage, 2014a) .Instead of creating an unnecessary chasm between artists, the general public, and the authorities, as reflected in the present paradigm where the MDA is seen to be the mediator between disgruntled members of the public and a root word of seemingly seditious artists that warrants to be subdued, it would be that much more purposeful for the growth of our nation, communities, and our people if we could see ourselves as a joint whole and reconcile our differences through an open, shared discourse, as opposed to mere coercion by proxy. Whilst I understand the imperativeness of MDAs a dvisories in aiding audiences to make amend informed choices, it is equally important to underscore that such classifications should really be meant as a general caution, and that delving beyond that into micro-managing the entirety of an art work only serves to backfire as not only does it impugn upon exquisite integrity and the true spirit of artistic endeavour (Arts Engage, 2014a), it ultimately renders our artistic practices bleak and sterile.Rather than imposing such stringent aseptic rules, we ought to be encouraging a greater tip of sophistication and open-minded appreciation of the arts amongst the public such that it is imbued within our society the capacity to recognize that there is always more than a single right way in which the arts may plug in to us (Chee Meng, 2014). If we could devote our efforts into nurturing a greater pool of art critics be it in terms of adept professionals or greenhorn amateurs in seat of content assessors, we would then be able to engage in a much more active and meaningful discourse on the merits of our artistic output which I believe, would assist in establishing that much needed fullness of an open, receptive, and constructive dialogue between our artists and the MDA authorities, consequently forging an improved relationship of trust and respect that would be beneficent to all.Perhaps, a system of regulation that entails an open, consistent, and transparent process, in which discussions may be laid bare for public critique, whose jurisdiction are composed of knowledgeable, publicly-informed, and impartial members principled upon an arms-length approach from any political interests, and whose decision-making processes are periodically subjected to review by an independent body, would better serve to inspire confidence not only from our artists, but within that of my fellow Singaporeans to both the MDA authorities and our local arts industry, as well as across governments (Arts Engage, 2014b). This, I strongly as sert is one of the many an(prenominal) fundamental steps that we must take together if the MDA genuinely seeks to foster a co-regulatory partnership that empowers our art practitioners and audiences alike.Indeed, the arts should be appreciated in all of its variegated diversity, fluidity, and sublime nuances that it is an inherent part and parcel of ones intellectual and emotional growth that cannot be merely subjugated or predetermined by those contending privileged tastes or moral claims. at one time again, I sincerely implore the relevant MDA authorities reconsider the proposed amendments of PEMA 2014, and to engage with representative citizen bodies as well as artists in another shine of consultations before officially implementing the new scheme.I look forward to tryout from you,Thank you.Yours sincerely,Karen Lim.