Activist files complaint against Mediacorp
-
Activist files complaint against national broadcaster
Agence France Presse
September 2, 2005
SINGAPORE
A SINGAPOREAN activist has filed a police complaint against national broadcaster MediaCorp for allegedly violating the island's Films Act banning political advertising using film or video.
The complaint, filed by Yap Keng Ho, accuses MediaCorp of screening two programs about ruling People's Action Party leaders and is meant as a protest against Singapore's stringent censorship, Yap said.
Yap told AFP Friday, Sept 2, he wanted to expose a pro-ruling party bias in the legislation banning political films with his complaint, which comes as police investigate independent Singaporean film maker Martyn See for making a documentary about an opposition leader.
The Films Act bans political advertising using films or videos, as well as movies directed towards any political end such as promoting parties.
"I feel that it is a very unfair and biased legislation," Yap, a 44-year-old information technology consultant, told AFP. "I want to show the world whether law enforcement (in Singapore) is going to be fair or not."
Yap's complaint alleges that MediaCorp had violated the Films Act by screening two programs in 2002 and this year featuring Singapore's founding father Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, respectively.
A spokesman for the Singapore police confirmed they received the complaint "and are currently making the necessary checks with the Media Development Authority (MDA)."
A spokesman for MediaCorp said they were unaware of Yap's complaint.
On Monday, filmmaker See surrendered to police his camera and remaining tapes of the documentary "Singapore Rebel" about Chee Soon Juan, secretary-general of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party.
Chee, the most vocal opposition politician in Singapore, is facing bankruptcy after the High Court ordered him to pay S$500,000 (US$300,000) for defaming PAP leaders.
Affluent Singapore has often been criticised by human rights groups for maintaining strict political controls despite its rapid modernisation since becoming a republic 40 years ago last month. Singapore has been ruled by the PAP since independence.
----
Sounds fair enough to me. -
Yes
Fair enough
But CSJ's one, I suspect it was backed by someone -
Both are backed by someoneOriginally posted by sbst275:Yes
Fair enough
But CSJ's one, I suspect it was backed by someone
-
Correct...Originally posted by LazerLordz:Both are backed by someone
CSJ's is abt non bread and butter issue that Ah Pek dun understand
While MCS is party's celebration -
"Sounds fair" means you agree that Yap Keng Ho should file his complain against mediacorp?
-
Any way, lets put it this way, we already know what will be the outcome for this instance right? I have seen too much ending with political ending purposes.
-
Why not?Isn't it the same side of the coin?Politics mean you have to be prepared to be peppered in the same arena even when you are in power.No divine protection there.Originally posted by Cindyfeh:"Sounds fair" means you agree that Yap Keng Ho should file his complain against mediacorp? -
The complaint is valid, but who will dare offend the Lee dynasty? There's one set of rules for a certain group of people, and another for the rest of us.
-
well ... the person should be prepared to get some diplomatic politically-correct BS that defend their displays of bias programs and which is twisted to justify the shows. The activitist better think up a public apology soon as well and prepare to have his life made difficult.. or migrate elsewhere. Dissenting voices are never heard in sg for a reason
-
Truth is dying and needs an IV drip.
-
The imperial family what...their blood is different from ours.Originally posted by av98m:The complaint is valid, but who will dare offend the Lee dynasty? There's one set of rules for a certain group of people, and another for the rest of us. -
did this news get publshed in the local papers?
I think he informed AFP -
Wow! Yap Kheng Ho is a very brave man and an endangered species.
-
Sure as hell it is. No thanks to the royal Lee clan.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Truth is dying and needs an IV drip. 
-
HAve LKY and/or LHL lost any lawsuit???
-
LKY, in Canada.Originally posted by sgboy2004:HAve LKY and/or LHL lost any lawsuit??? -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The imperial family what...their blood is different from ours.
-
Against Devan Nair, wasn't it?Originally posted by LazerLordz:LKY, in Canada. -
i have a feeling that PAP is corrupted...
-
kudos to Yap!
hopefully someone can further his point in straits times forum...
-
Yeah.Lawsuit against Devan Nair and newspaper " The Globe and Mail" was thrown out by a state judge who found no clear proof of libel.And under Canadian law, those words are protected by their Constitution as Devan wasn't found to have reached a point where it was defamation.Originally posted by iveco:Against Devan Nair, wasn't it?
This were the detais of the case.
http://www.geocities.com/newsintercom/sp/interviews/casename.htm -
Is our Judicial System flawed when handling cases brought up by the Ruling Party a.k.a the Singapore Government against those who opposed them ?
LKY had also lost in another legal tussle between him and Jeyaratnam, when Jeyaratnam appealed against the unlawful conviction of charges of accounting misappropriation brought against him and the Worker's Party.
LKY had challenged Jeyaratnam that if the Privy Council in UK can find the judicial process to be wrong, LKY will plead on Jeya's behalf for a Presidential pardon.
The Privy Council did find the High Court decision to be wronged, and upheld the earlier decision of the District Court Judge to be correct in initially throwing out the charges by the Singapore Government.
For his decision, the District Court Judge - Mr Michael Khoo - was demoted from the District Court, and made a Deputy Public Prosecutor in the Attorney General Chambers.
For their decision, the Privy Council was no longer made the Last Court of Appeal for the Singapore Legal Process - when it was so proudly touted in the beginning, that the Privy Council will serve as a benchmark to judge the standards of the Singapore Judiciary System.
LKY claimed that the Privy Council was wrong in making their views that included the criminal aspects of the judgment, which was not part of the scope of the review by the Privy Council - (the Privy Council had expressed that both charges against Jeyaratnam were wrong in Law, and the convictions were necessarily wrong ) .
Extract from the following referenced site:
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw01/010720ai.htm
Following his re-election in 1984, J B Jeyaretnam was charged for alleged financial impropriety related to the collection of party funds.
In 1986 he was acquitted by a District Court of all charges save one.
The prosecution appealed the acquittal and the then Chief Justice allowed the appeal, with the direction that a re-trial be heard by a District Court.
At re-trial JB Jeyaretnam was found guilty and sentenced to three months in jail, which was reduced by the High Court but with the addition of a S$5000 fine. The imposition of a fine of over S$2000 resulted in the automatic disqualification of JB Jeyaretnam as a member of parliament and the conviction also triggered a Law Society hearing that resulted in him being disbarred.
JB Jeyaretnam's earlier application for the re-trial to be heard before the High Court rather than a District Court, which would have allowed any subsequent appeal to be pursued up to Singapore's then highest court, the Privy Council located in London, had been refused.
After his conviction his appeal to the Privy Council was limited to consideration of his disbarment.
In its judgement the Privy Council concluded that JB Jeyaretnam and a co-accused had been "fined, imprisoned, and publicly disgraced for offences for which they were not guilty" and directed the Law Society to reinstate JB Jeyaretnam.
The government refused to heed the Privy Council's advice to facilitate a pardon for JB Jeyaretnam on the grounds that the criminal convictions had not been the subject of the Privy Council appeal.
JB Jeyaretnam was subsequently re-instated as a lawyer, but prevented from standing again for election until 1997, when he ran and was returned as a non-constituency member of parliament.
The Politics of Judicial Institutions in Singapore
http://www.singapore-window.org/1028judi.htm -
there must be an international watchdog to prevent abuse of a system.....