Talk:Censorship in Singapore/Archive 1

Public domain

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Singlish is banned for commercials, see also the new discussion at: Talk:Censorship_in_Singapore#New_Section:_Languages --Never stop exploring (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

MDA's official guidelines

Time to put an end to guessing and take some extracts directly from here:

SUBSCRIPTION TELEVISION PROGRAMME CODE

Note eg. Section 11 on Singlish and Chinese dialects. Jpatokal 18:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:MDA block.png

Image:MDA block.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Internet banned sites

All of the "banned sites" listed in the Internet section can be accessed from inside Singapore using the SingTel ISP. It looks like they're not on the "banned" list anymore. Glider87 (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? I'm on SingNet right now, and I get "The site you requested is not accessible" for playboy.com. Jpatokal (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SingNet public wireless and SingTel private in your home are a different kettle of fish. From SingTel at home the sites are perfectly visible. Glider87 (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problems here.119.234.4.127 (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using SingNet ADSL at home. The block message also says "For more information please check Media Development Authority", so it's the MDA pulling the strings here. Jpatokal (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you need SingTel mobile which isn't blocked.119.234.38.99 (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, doesn't work via SingTel IDEAS either. "403 Communication with the resource you have requested is blocked". Jpatokal (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me with SingTel IDEAS. No block. Check my IP geolocate.119.234.4.39 (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh... congratulations? Jpatokal (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puff, the Magic Dragon, fearing that it referenced marijuana

I can see it in the reference, but can't anybody come up with a reference better than that???

A song which seems to be about a pipe dream inspired by Chasing the dragon didn't need an association with marijuana to be banned in Singapore at that time. It was still to much of a real problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.53.46 (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Section: Languages

Hi guys, just noticed that there is currently no category about the censorship of languages in singapore, specifically the ban on chinese dialects in the media. So i started compiling some references about this topic, see also my [edit] which was reverted. To find a consensus about this topic, I just wanted to ask you guys if anybody disagree with the existence of

Chinese Dialects

criticized, Languages of Singapore or Broadcasting in Singapore which I gave reference to? --Never stop exploring (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC) BTW: I agree with Zhanzhao hat I should not include a reference to an [petition]. So if you have any opinion on this, please help adding this topic within the article about censorship in singapore. Thank you![reply]

Hi there, I think its a good issue to bring up, just that your sources were a little questionable, which also affected the write up a little, and the petition writeup doesn't help. Off-hand I think you can reference the MDA's website for the actual ruling against dialects in TV/radio programs, IIRC LKY's speech also gave his reason for why dialects was discouraged. The "Dialects are death" part confused me, did you mean dialects are dead? I did google this out [2] which gives statistics that shows a significant dip in dialect usage, maybe you can use this instead without the exaggerated "death" description. Will look at this later when I have time. Sorry I removed the whole thing, my focus was removing the questionable sources and the petition more than anything else. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with what you say, just found another Blog which references to a petition from 2013 (which is closed now). Four main arguments for the reintroduction of Chinese dialects on Singapore’s free-to-air television , don't have time right now but look into this later. And also 10 things I hate about singapore, which covers the ban of dialects: http://therealsingapore.com/content/ten-things-i-hate-about-singapore :) then on the MDA website I found this reference only at the moment: http://www.mda.gov.sg/RegulationsAndLicensing/ContentStandardsAndClassification/Documents/TV%20and%20Radio/PoliciesandContentGuidelines_TV_TVAdCode.pdf (added that also to the article at: Languages_of_Singapore#Singlish

Section: Use of Language Article 21. a. All advertisements should maintain a good standard of language. For example, Singlish and ungrammatical English should not be used.

Article 21. b. Advertisements containing dialect are not to be broadcast, unless approved by the Authority. However, commonly used dialect terms such as „Bak Kut Teh' or „Siew Mai‟ may still be used as the Mandarin equivalent may not be easily understood.

But this two sections are only about the "TV ADVERTISING CODE". There should be more about the ban on the dialects, if you find something, please help to add the reference. Never stop exploring (talk)

Singlish

http://www.mda.gov.sg/RegulationsAndLicensing/ContentStandardsAndClassification/Documents/TV%20and%20Radio/PoliciesandContentGuidelines_TV_TVAdCode.pdf (added that also to the article at: Languages_of_Singapore#Singlish

Section: Use of Language Article 21. a. All advertisements should maintain a good standard of language. For example, Singlish and ungrammatical English should not be used.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Censorship in Singapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Censorship in Singapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041101074537/http://epn.org:80/psq/rodan.html to http://epn.org/psq/rodan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Censorship in Singapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Censorship in Singapore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]