Amendments of Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PMA)

Amendments of Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PMA)To whom it may concern,As a dutiful Singaporean citizen who is deeply relate with the tidings of our topical anaesthetic frauds industry, I am writing 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 whitethorn 12th 2014. I also refer to Ms. Corrie Tans dodgeworkicle titled, Art of Censorship in Singapore (The Straits Times, 7 June 2014).I regard that the aforementioned proposition seeks to establish a co-regulatory p artistic creationnership with local art practitioners by empowering arts entertainment event organisers to classify their own performances whilst adhering to friendship standards and expectations (MDA, 2014a). Consequently, a peeled arts full term Licensing Scheme which mandates the obligatory training of individual artists from local art companies by the MDA as qualified content assessors for s elf-classification has been edict.Whilst the full ecumenic outlook of the said proposal may be easy meaning in nature as it confers a window peek to MDAs forward-looking shift toward the relegation of some of its authority over content classification 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 exceedingly troubled as m either fundamental assumptions rooted in its conception, albeit seemingly kindly on paper, remains deeply problematic in both consecrate as well as in intuitive feeling.Accordingly, I note that the concepts of self-classification, co-regulation, and empowerment of the local arts industry as posited in the new scheme, falls on a highly erroneous continuum of prevarication as they have not been veritably demonstrated. The impression of self-classification suggests that local art practitioners are granted with an a utonomous, free-willed, and imperative role of contribution in the development and undertaking of the classification guidelines. Yet, much(prenominal)(prenominal) has been reflected otherwise in practice as the classification of art works remain subjugated to the prescribed criterions solely ordained by the MDA, without assembling any prior consultations or discussions with art practitioners (Arts Engage, 2014a). In addition, self-classification implies the absence of censoring wherein art works merely follow a catalogue 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 new scheme by MDA is but a reinstatement of the same old perilous template of censorship in Singapore where authorities are conceived as the unequivocal arbiters of tastes (McGuigan, 1996), rather than trusting artists to b e ethically, morally, or socially responsible, and that of my fellow Singaporeans capacity to judge an art work critically.Under the principles of classification published in the 2010 report by the Censorship Review Committee (CRC Report, 2010), it was stated that classification boundaries must be cross off according to community standards determined via an engagement process 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 public to determine the perimeters of classification as in in tandem with MDAs ideals of consultation and working closely 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 new Arts Term Licensing Scheme which edicts artists to be trained by the MDA as qualified content assessors is but a guise of the state p olicing the arts by placeholder as these content assessors are strictly tethered to executing MDAs rules. Instead of creating an ingenuous engagement mingled with art practitioners and the MDA where genuine partnership and overlap responsibilities may be fostered, artists are merely subjugated as extensions of MDAs censorships.This, I believe is not co-regulation, but a faade for self-censorship. More notably, such a move resembles that of a panopticon surveillance (Foucault, 1977) with MDAs pervasiveness at disciplining and normalizing artistic expression on both a macro and micro level by implanting seemingly innocuous content assessors within the heart of art companies so that whilst MDAs presence appears to be incognito on the surface, their regulations still remain execute with stringency. Not only is this highly inimical to ones artistic innovation and creativity (Arts Engage, 2014b), I believe that the fear of non-conformance would fester like an seductive wound that ult imately 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 within my fellow Singaporeans recognize and acknowledge the varying nuances when it comes to the interpretation of art (Chee Meng, 2014). With such an intolerant perspective that fails to conceive art as an commencement exercise for constructive discourse, how then can our nation truly blossom into a Global City of the Arts as our leaders have envisioned?Furthermore, it was hold in the 2003 report of Censorship Review Committee that a one-size-fits-all paradigm 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 stressed that the Arts Term Licensing Scheme is optional suggesting that artists have a choice in the matter, it appe ars that this is but a shrewd attempt by the authorities at veiling a false dichotomy to our art practitioners as they are fundamentally caught in between continuing the present regime where MDA issues all classifications and advisories, or that of a seemingly different system that is inherently the same as the precedent since content assessors are specially trained to heed MDAs specifications. As such, I question MDAs sincerity at co-regulation and all of its supposed ideals of openness, engagement, inclusiveness, and transparency. In line with the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore which delineates that every Singaporean citizen possess the rights of freedom of speech (Attorney Generals 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 concept of a public sphere (Habermas, 1964) where there an open quad that allows for the exploration of ideas free from overbea ring 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 choice in enjoying art in all its various forms? By limiting the creations of artists, allowing audiences to be only be granted access to what is deemed as appropriate content, and creating a rift of division between content assessors and their colleagues all in the designation of public good, is the MDA genuinely protecting social harmony, or is this simply a circumvented attempt at regulating a power relationship between us citizens and the state (McGuigan, 1996).In a similar vein, MDAs espoused notion of empowering art practitioners by according them the prerogative in deciding the classification of their art works remains highly contentious as in practice, artists are subjugated to the strict adherence of MDAs policing mec hanisms by proxy and wherefore, are renounced of any leeway to exercise 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 cryptograph but a surreptitious attempt by the MDA at egregiously eluding all of the said problems underlying self-censorship as the scheme constructs a delusory look 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 free lance of MDAs (i.e. authoritys) intrusiveness. It is thus, thwart to note that whilst 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 retaliatory 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 lucidness upon the assessment and appeal processes, what then is of MDAs assistant chief executive, Mr. Christopher Ngs claim that authorities would be reasonable and fair (Chee Meng, 2014) in the paygrade 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 malignment 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 intermediator between disgruntled members of the public and a group 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 hatful if we could see ourselves as a collective whole and reconcile our differences through an open, shared discourse, as opposed to mere coercion by proxy. Whilst I understand the imperativeness of MDAs advisories in aiding audiences to make better 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 artistic 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 arcdegree 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 exclusive right way in which the arts may relate to us (Chee Meng, 2014). If we could devote our efforts into nurturing a greater pool of art critics be it in legal injury of adept professionals or greenhorn amateurs in lieu of content assessors, we would then be able to engage in a much more supple and meaningful discourse on the merits of our artistic output which I be lieve, would assist in establishing that much needed breadth 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 dictated 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 assert is one of the many fundamental steps that we must take together if the MDA genuinely se eks 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 keen and emotional growth that cannot be merely subjugated or predetermined by those contending privileged tastes or moral claims. Once again, I sincerely beg the relevant MDA authorities reconsider the proposed amendments of PEMA 2014, and to engage with representative citizen bodies as well as artists in another round of consultations before officially implementing the new scheme.I look forward to hearing from you,Thank you.Yours sincerely,Karen Lim.