Govt retains ban on Zahari's 17 Years
The Government has retained the ban on Zahari's 17 Years.
In a letter hand-delivered to my home yesterday, the Board of Film Censors (BFC) said that the recent Films Act amendments did not cover Section 35 and that the Minister has not changed his position on the film.
The letter also stated that the Films (Amendment) Act is not yet in force and suggested that I resubmit Singapore Rebel after the Act comes into force.
A summary of the ratings made by BFC on my recent submissions of six films. Read my earlier letter here.
1. Singapore Rebel (2009) No decision. To resubmit.
2. Zahari's 17 Years (2009) Banned retained.
3. Speakers Cornered (2009) No change. Passed NC16.
4. One Nation Under Lee No decision. To resubmit
5. Success Stories : Lee Kuan Yew No change. Passed PG.
6. Riding The Tiger No change. Exempted under section 40.
The Government's letter in full here
No change to status of six movies
Singapore News // Weekend, April 18, 2009
THERE will be no change, for now, to the status of the six films submitted by film-maker Martyn See to the Media Development Authority (MDA).
.
As a “test” of the liberalisation of the Films Act, Mr See had re-submitted three of his films and three from other film-makers to the MDA for re-classification, on March 31.
.
However, MDA’s written reply on Thursday said the “2009 amendments to the Films Acts are not yet in force”, and advised Mr See to “re-submit them after the amendments come into force”.
.
The disappointed film-maker said he had sent in his films “with the intention they would review them based on the new ruling”.
.
He will re-submit Singapore Rebel and One Nation Under Lee after the amendments come into effect, he said, and “hopefully it will be passed and legalised, and Singaporeans can judge and decide for themselves what to watch and what should not be allowed”.
.
However, Mr See will “not pursue” his bid to un-ban the film Zahari’s 17 Years, which is prohibited under Section 35(1) of the Films Act for being contrary to the public interest.
.
The MDA said in its letter, the upcoming amendments to the Act “do not relate to Section 35(1) and the Minister has not changed his opinion”.
ALICIA WONG
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27427.1
Showing posts with label Films Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Films Act. Show all posts
Friday, April 17, 2009
“Zahari 17 Years” continues to be banned in S’pore - BFC
“Zahari 17 Years” continues to be banned in S’pore - BFC
Friday, 17 April 2009
Film maker, Mr Martyn See, submitted six films to the Board of Film Censors on 31 March 2009. The following is the BFC’s letter which was received by Mr See on April 17.
Dear Mr See,
1. I refer to your letter dated 31 March 2009 regarding your submission of six films to the Board of Film Censors (BFC) for classification.
2. Please note that the 2009 amendments to the Films Act are not yet in force. As such, if you would like the BFC to consider the film based on the criteria in the amended Films Act, we would suggest that you collect the films and re-submit them after the amendments come into force.
3. We note that two of the films, “Speakers Cornered” and “Success Stories: Lee Kuan Yew”, were previously submitted and approved by the BFC. “Speakers Cornered” was approved and rated NC16 in April 2008 and “Success Stories: Lee Kuan Yew” was approved and rated PG in May 2007. If the content of the forestate two films has not changed since they were rated, the same ratings will continue to apply. “Riding The Tiger” is a documentary series commissioned by Mica (then Ministry of Information and the Arts) and subsequently aired over Channel NewsAsia in 2000. You may wish to note that Section 40 of the Films Act exempts any film sponsored by the Government from the requirements of the Act. As for the films “Singapore Rebel” and “One Nation Under Lee” we reiterate our suggestion that you collect the films and re-submit them after the 2009 amendments come into force. Should you need more details regarding the films (Amendment Bill), please refer to Second Reading speech on the Films Amendment Bill on Mica’s website.
4. Please be informed that the film “Zahari 17 Years” was previously gazetted by the Minister as a prohibited film under Section 35 (1) of the Films Act as the Minister was of the view that it’s possession or distribution would be contrary to the public interest. As the upcoming amendments to the Films Act do not relate to Section 35 (1), and the Minister has not changed his opinion, “Zahari 17 Years” continues to be a prohibited film. Please note that we will not be releasing this film for your collection as it is an offence for any person to be in possession of a prohibited film under Section 35 (2).
5. Please get in touch with the Customer Services and Operations Division with regards to collecting the rest of the films.
Yours sincerely,
Wang Chee Yann
Head (Films Standards, English)
Board of Film Censors
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27142.1
Friday, 17 April 2009
Film maker, Mr Martyn See, submitted six films to the Board of Film Censors on 31 March 2009. The following is the BFC’s letter which was received by Mr See on April 17.
Dear Mr See,
1. I refer to your letter dated 31 March 2009 regarding your submission of six films to the Board of Film Censors (BFC) for classification.
2. Please note that the 2009 amendments to the Films Act are not yet in force. As such, if you would like the BFC to consider the film based on the criteria in the amended Films Act, we would suggest that you collect the films and re-submit them after the amendments come into force.
3. We note that two of the films, “Speakers Cornered” and “Success Stories: Lee Kuan Yew”, were previously submitted and approved by the BFC. “Speakers Cornered” was approved and rated NC16 in April 2008 and “Success Stories: Lee Kuan Yew” was approved and rated PG in May 2007. If the content of the forestate two films has not changed since they were rated, the same ratings will continue to apply. “Riding The Tiger” is a documentary series commissioned by Mica (then Ministry of Information and the Arts) and subsequently aired over Channel NewsAsia in 2000. You may wish to note that Section 40 of the Films Act exempts any film sponsored by the Government from the requirements of the Act. As for the films “Singapore Rebel” and “One Nation Under Lee” we reiterate our suggestion that you collect the films and re-submit them after the 2009 amendments come into force. Should you need more details regarding the films (Amendment Bill), please refer to Second Reading speech on the Films Amendment Bill on Mica’s website.
4. Please be informed that the film “Zahari 17 Years” was previously gazetted by the Minister as a prohibited film under Section 35 (1) of the Films Act as the Minister was of the view that it’s possession or distribution would be contrary to the public interest. As the upcoming amendments to the Films Act do not relate to Section 35 (1), and the Minister has not changed his opinion, “Zahari 17 Years” continues to be a prohibited film. Please note that we will not be releasing this film for your collection as it is an offence for any person to be in possession of a prohibited film under Section 35 (2).
5. Please get in touch with the Customer Services and Operations Division with regards to collecting the rest of the films.
Yours sincerely,
Wang Chee Yann
Head (Films Standards, English)
Board of Film Censors
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27142.1
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Films Act Noose Tightens
The Films Act Noose Tightens
Feel suffocated?
Feel frustrated?
Feel alone?
You are not alone in feeling frustrated and suffocated when the bill on changes to the film act expectedly became law. Regulation via feigned liberalisation is the PAP’s hidden Newspeak when it talks about control of the PAPolitical discourse. The government promised to allow political films but in the process threw in more regulation on political messages especially intended for dissemination in the internet. This political discourse is no longer dominated by the subjugated media, it is now contested by the very audience it is supposed to brainwash. Since the convenience of uploading video content, the public have made up their own stories about PAP rule with not only words, but pictures and videos as well. Hence, the internet and handphone cameras are the latest basic screwdrivers to loosen parts in the PAP’s propaganda machine.
The 2006 general election showed the potential of handphone cameras and Youtube. People were uploading election rally videos left right and centre despite the government’s hastily imposed ban on recorded speeches as political videos. That is the first of the PAP’s paranoia about technology that undermines their rule. The other reason for the PAP’s fear of the dramatised political video is Martyn See. The original local par excellence video activist who was able to jolt Singaporeans back into reality and expose the PAP’s twofaced doublespeak propaganda with Singapore Rebel and Speakers Cornered. Before The Online Citizen, the Wayang Party, there was Chee Soon Juan, who was way ahead of his time in using the internet and its video potential to enlighten Singaporeans. Martyn See had this to say about the new regressive law “It shows off a government that is incapable of trusting its own citizens to watch political films“. I think it rather shows that the government only wants the citizens to watch only its political films in the form of “documentaries” on CNA, which is exempt from the Films Act’s restrictions on political messages.
The ban on political films came into effect in 1998 as Section 33 of the Films Act, two years after SDP applied and probably failed to get a licence to sell a videotape about the party. Eleven years later, the “Chee Soon Juan law” has evolved into a bigger net and the police has even more legal grounds to detain or arrest citizens. The 1981 Films Act is gradually being amended with catch-all phrasing to not only focus on political parties and their supporters, but also on the average person on the street who is able to whip out his or her handphone to record for posterity non-PAP political events. The more technology progresses to allow citizens to become active in contesting government propaganda, the tighter laws like the Films Act would become. This is only the tip of the PAP juggernaut coming.
Feel suffocated?
Feel frustrated?
Feel alone?
You are not alone in feeling frustrated and suffocated when the bill on changes to the film act expectedly became law. Regulation via feigned liberalisation is the PAP’s hidden Newspeak when it talks about control of the PAPolitical discourse. The government promised to allow political films but in the process threw in more regulation on political messages especially intended for dissemination in the internet. This political discourse is no longer dominated by the subjugated media, it is now contested by the very audience it is supposed to brainwash. Since the convenience of uploading video content, the public have made up their own stories about PAP rule with not only words, but pictures and videos as well. Hence, the internet and handphone cameras are the latest basic screwdrivers to loosen parts in the PAP’s propaganda machine.
The 2006 general election showed the potential of handphone cameras and Youtube. People were uploading election rally videos left right and centre despite the government’s hastily imposed ban on recorded speeches as political videos. That is the first of the PAP’s paranoia about technology that undermines their rule. The other reason for the PAP’s fear of the dramatised political video is Martyn See. The original local par excellence video activist who was able to jolt Singaporeans back into reality and expose the PAP’s twofaced doublespeak propaganda with Singapore Rebel and Speakers Cornered. Before The Online Citizen, the Wayang Party, there was Chee Soon Juan, who was way ahead of his time in using the internet and its video potential to enlighten Singaporeans. Martyn See had this to say about the new regressive law “It shows off a government that is incapable of trusting its own citizens to watch political films“. I think it rather shows that the government only wants the citizens to watch only its political films in the form of “documentaries” on CNA, which is exempt from the Films Act’s restrictions on political messages.
The ban on political films came into effect in 1998 as Section 33 of the Films Act, two years after SDP applied and probably failed to get a licence to sell a videotape about the party. Eleven years later, the “Chee Soon Juan law” has evolved into a bigger net and the police has even more legal grounds to detain or arrest citizens. The 1981 Films Act is gradually being amended with catch-all phrasing to not only focus on political parties and their supporters, but also on the average person on the street who is able to whip out his or her handphone to record for posterity non-PAP political events. The more technology progresses to allow citizens to become active in contesting government propaganda, the tighter laws like the Films Act would become. This is only the tip of the PAP juggernaut coming.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25103.1
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
A murkier Films Act
A murkier Films Act
In 1998, a blanket ban on political films came into existence and 10 years later, the PAP government began to “rethink”.
With that, Parliament passed a bill yesterday (23 March 2009) to amend the Films Act - but in a way that it confounded more than clarified certain perspectives.
Last year, some had already sensed something amiss when it was revealed that the Act would be liberalised in stages, with a dash of new laws and a preview of what they may comprise.
Several prominent netizens then called for a total, one-off repeal of Section 33 of the Films Act instead.
Choo Zheng Xi, editor of The Online Citizen, could not be more than spot on when he said in December 2008, during an interview with Channel NewsAsia, that it would be “messy legislation” if repealed in stages.
Indeed, it turned out to be.
The legislation is now official and opened frontiers that were previously restricted - but three new areas are engulfed in obscurity.
1) Filming of illegal events become illegal
The principle of law states that a person is “innocent until proven guilty”.
After the police arrest people who may have broken the law, the judiciary is ultimately the body that delivers the verdict.
However, filmmakers may have to play the role of a judge to know if an event is illegal or otherwise.
Should a filmmaker be convicted but the defendant(s) are acquitted, what would happen remains curious.
Should the defendant(s) be pronounced guilty, the filmmaker would probably be left to suffer sleepless nights.
2) No animation, please
“Animation” is defined as a “rapid display of a sequence of images or positions in order to create an illusion of movement”.
With political films not allowed to display animations, the government was in effect not liberalising films but Microsoft Powerpoint presentations.
In the first place, Powerpoint presentations were never banned and Workers’ Party members have used it for the party’s closed-door events.
Even then, one wonders if switches between various slides in such presentations would be termed as “movements”.
While on the topic of “new media” in his National Day Rally speech last year, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was waving a video camera - without realising that one is not even needed to generate static images.
3) “Partisan” or “non-factual” films are “no-no”
Are manifestos of political parties - one of the items listed by the Straits Times - not partisan?
Perhaps the PAP has to include footage of the opposition in its own films or it would be deemed to be making partisan films.
Then again, the PAP is of the opinion that opposition’s mantra is never factual, case in point being the WP’s “time bombs” and “poisons” in its manifesto.
Hence, it is tantamount to saying that the opposition can never make any political films without contravening the law - or they could try to make one extolling the PAP.
All in all, there are liberalised aspects that defeat a blanket ban but the progress could have been better - and less ambiguous.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25295.1
In 1998, a blanket ban on political films came into existence and 10 years later, the PAP government began to “rethink”.
With that, Parliament passed a bill yesterday (23 March 2009) to amend the Films Act - but in a way that it confounded more than clarified certain perspectives.
Last year, some had already sensed something amiss when it was revealed that the Act would be liberalised in stages, with a dash of new laws and a preview of what they may comprise.
Several prominent netizens then called for a total, one-off repeal of Section 33 of the Films Act instead.
Choo Zheng Xi, editor of The Online Citizen, could not be more than spot on when he said in December 2008, during an interview with Channel NewsAsia, that it would be “messy legislation” if repealed in stages.
Indeed, it turned out to be.
The legislation is now official and opened frontiers that were previously restricted - but three new areas are engulfed in obscurity.
1) Filming of illegal events become illegal
The principle of law states that a person is “innocent until proven guilty”.
After the police arrest people who may have broken the law, the judiciary is ultimately the body that delivers the verdict.
However, filmmakers may have to play the role of a judge to know if an event is illegal or otherwise.
Should a filmmaker be convicted but the defendant(s) are acquitted, what would happen remains curious.
Should the defendant(s) be pronounced guilty, the filmmaker would probably be left to suffer sleepless nights.
2) No animation, please
“Animation” is defined as a “rapid display of a sequence of images or positions in order to create an illusion of movement”.
With political films not allowed to display animations, the government was in effect not liberalising films but Microsoft Powerpoint presentations.
In the first place, Powerpoint presentations were never banned and Workers’ Party members have used it for the party’s closed-door events.
Even then, one wonders if switches between various slides in such presentations would be termed as “movements”.
While on the topic of “new media” in his National Day Rally speech last year, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was waving a video camera - without realising that one is not even needed to generate static images.
3) “Partisan” or “non-factual” films are “no-no”
Are manifestos of political parties - one of the items listed by the Straits Times - not partisan?
Perhaps the PAP has to include footage of the opposition in its own films or it would be deemed to be making partisan films.
Then again, the PAP is of the opinion that opposition’s mantra is never factual, case in point being the WP’s “time bombs” and “poisons” in its manifesto.
Hence, it is tantamount to saying that the opposition can never make any political films without contravening the law - or they could try to make one extolling the PAP.
All in all, there are liberalised aspects that defeat a blanket ban but the progress could have been better - and less ambiguous.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25295.1
Monday, March 23, 2009
New restrictions to Films Act introduced in the guise of liberalisation
New restrictions to Films Act introduced in the guise of liberalisation
The amendments to the Films Act bill has been passed in Parliament. State-owned CNA was the first off the blocks, calling it "a significant step to further liberalize and expand the space for political debate." The Straits Times and others will likely to parrot the enthusiasm, and there will be no end to the Government hailing the amendments as the a sign of Singapore opening up.
While I leave the analysis to the bloggers and commentators, I will just spell out here in layman's terms what the amendments really mean to you.
WHAT HASN'T CHANGED IN FILMS ACT
The only major amendment is in Section 33 of the Films Act.
The rest of the Films Act remains largely unchanged. For example, the following sections still applies.
1. Section 14 requires that you submit any video in your possession (this includes video images stored in your handphone and private videos in your collection) to the Board of Film Censors (BFC).
2. Section 21 spells out the penalties if you possesses, exhibits or reproduces any unlicensed video.
3. Section 23 authorizes the police to enter and search your home, seize any unlicensed video(s) and to take into custody any person reasonably believed to be guilty of an offence under the Act.
WHAT HASN'T CHANGED IN SECTION 33
Section 33 prohibits the making, exhibition, distribution and import of "party political films", which are defined as videos or films that makes "partisan or biased references to or comments on any political matter." It also states that the penalties for such an offence is a conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.
In general, the above has not changed. It still applies.
The only change to the above is that instead of the BFC, an Independent Advisory Board will now decide what constitutes "partisan or biased references" . The Board is slated to be headed by ex-district court judge Richard Magnus. The members of the Board have not been announced as yet.
WHAT IS "ALLOWED"
What is "allowed" here, as the Minister and the media gloat, is really a misnomer as there were no prior restrictions on such videos.
1. The new amendment states you can now make a video that contain the whole or material proportion of a political event(s) that are held according to the law. Please note that this new addition is NOT a liberalization as there were no sections in the previous Act that disallowed this. For example, my film Speakers Cornered (2006) was passed by the BFC prior to this new ruling. Ironically, this new amendment may actually criminalize Speakers Cornered as the participants of that protest are now undergoing trial!
2. The new amendment states you can now make political videos that do not contain any animation and must composed wholly of an accurate account of a political event or persons. Again this is NOT a liberalization as there were no sections in the previous Act that disallowed this. In fact, this is a new restriction dressed up as liberalization. Sneaky.
WHAT IS REALLY ALLOWED (where previously banned)
This is the only part that fits the bill of liberalization (but is negated later by more new restrictions).
The new amendment states that you can now make, exhibit and distribute videos composed wholly of a political party's ideologies and manifestos. But here's the catch - the videos must be made "on the basis of which candidates authorized by the political party to stand will seek to be elected at a Parliamentary election." Does this mean that someone like Dr Chee Soon Juan, who is ineligible to stand for elections due to his bankruptcy, is not allowed to appear in such videos? Will something like this be criminalized?
WHAT IS NOW NOT ALLOWED (where previously allowed, or not stated)
Get ready, here are the bombshells.
1. You are now not allowed to make an unbiased and non-partisan political video that contains any form of animation. Like this.
2. You are now not allowed to make an unbiased and non-partisan political video that contains "wholly or substantially based on unscripted or "reality" type programmes." Something like this.
3. You are now not allowed to make an unbiased and non-partisan political video that depicts "events, persons or situations in a dramatic way." Something like this.
4. You are now not allowed to make an unbiased and non-partisan political video that contains scenes of an illegal political event. Something like this.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24855.2
While I leave the analysis to the bloggers and commentators, I will just spell out here in layman's terms what the amendments really mean to you.
WHAT HASN'T CHANGED IN FILMS ACT
The only major amendment is in Section 33 of the Films Act.
The rest of the Films Act remains largely unchanged. For example, the following sections still applies.
1. Section 14 requires that you submit any video in your possession (this includes video images stored in your handphone and private videos in your collection) to the Board of Film Censors (BFC).
2. Section 21 spells out the penalties if you possesses, exhibits or reproduces any unlicensed video.
3. Section 23 authorizes the police to enter and search your home, seize any unlicensed video(s) and to take into custody any person reasonably believed to be guilty of an offence under the Act.
WHAT HASN'T CHANGED IN SECTION 33
Section 33 prohibits the making, exhibition, distribution and import of "party political films", which are defined as videos or films that makes "partisan or biased references to or comments on any political matter." It also states that the penalties for such an offence is a conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.
In general, the above has not changed. It still applies.
The only change to the above is that instead of the BFC, an Independent Advisory Board will now decide what constitutes "partisan or biased references" . The Board is slated to be headed by ex-district court judge Richard Magnus. The members of the Board have not been announced as yet.
WHAT IS "ALLOWED"
What is "allowed" here, as the Minister and the media gloat, is really a misnomer as there were no prior restrictions on such videos.
1. The new amendment states you can now make a video that contain the whole or material proportion of a political event(s) that are held according to the law. Please note that this new addition is NOT a liberalization as there were no sections in the previous Act that disallowed this. For example, my film Speakers Cornered (2006) was passed by the BFC prior to this new ruling. Ironically, this new amendment may actually criminalize Speakers Cornered as the participants of that protest are now undergoing trial!
2. The new amendment states you can now make political videos that do not contain any animation and must composed wholly of an accurate account of a political event or persons. Again this is NOT a liberalization as there were no sections in the previous Act that disallowed this. In fact, this is a new restriction dressed up as liberalization. Sneaky.
WHAT IS REALLY ALLOWED (where previously banned)
This is the only part that fits the bill of liberalization (but is negated later by more new restrictions).
The new amendment states that you can now make, exhibit and distribute videos composed wholly of a political party's ideologies and manifestos. But here's the catch - the videos must be made "on the basis of which candidates authorized by the political party to stand will seek to be elected at a Parliamentary election." Does this mean that someone like Dr Chee Soon Juan, who is ineligible to stand for elections due to his bankruptcy, is not allowed to appear in such videos? Will something like this be criminalized?
WHAT IS NOW NOT ALLOWED (where previously allowed, or not stated)
Get ready, here are the bombshells.
1. You are now not allowed to make an unbiased and non-partisan political video that contains any form of animation. Like this.
2. You are now not allowed to make an unbiased and non-partisan political video that contains "wholly or substantially based on unscripted or "reality" type programmes." Something like this.
3. You are now not allowed to make an unbiased and non-partisan political video that depicts "events, persons or situations in a dramatic way." Something like this.
4. You are now not allowed to make an unbiased and non-partisan political video that contains scenes of an illegal political event. Something like this.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24855.2
Govt announces relaxation to Internet election advertising rules
Govt announces relaxation to Internet election advertising rules
By S.Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 23 March 2009 1628 hrs
 | |||||||||||
 | |||||||||||
|
SINGAPORE: Singapore's taking a significant step to further liberalise and expand the Internet space for political debate. Parliament has approved changes to the Films Act, allowing for certain types of films which would otherwise be termed party political films.
Regulations on internet election advertising have also been relaxed.
Singapore's society is changing and the younger generation want more space for political discourse and greater engagement with the government.
Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts, Lui Tuck Yew, said: "It is therefore important that the government learns to make better use of the medium of film and new media tools to reach out and engage, inform, educate and obtain the views of media-savvy Singaporeans.
"While videos, films and new media can be widely used and can improve communications, we must be mindful that they can be easily abused. This is the reason why, even as we liberalise, there needs to be some safeguards to minimise the risk that they will be exploited and to reduce the undesirable effects."
So amendments to the Films Act will allow films that are factual and objective. They must not dramatise or present a distorted picture.
With the change, LIVE recordings of events held in accordance with the law, anniversary and commemorative videos of political parties, and factual documentaries or biographies will be permitted.
The space for political expression is also liberalised. Political parties and their candidates will now be able to use films allowed under the Act during an election period.
MPs shared some views expressed by netizens and in other forums.
MP for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC, Penny Low, who also chairs the Government Parliamentary Committee for the Information, Communications and the Arts, said: "The Internet is rife with different opinions questioning the intent of the amendment.
"Is this really a step forward towards liberalisation or is this a step backwards to contain certain political parties? Even worse - is this to introduce a catch-all clause to contain even the film producer, the videographer and free speech."
Zaqy Mohamed, MP for Hong Kah GRC, said: "The proliferation of the new media and the ease of means to get films to be produced and distributed outside of Singapore signals that local regulations are becoming less and less effective."
Mr Lui noted that while films have their impact when reaching the population, they also have their downside.
He said: "If our democracy is reduced to slick commercials, clever editing, sharp sound bites and political spin, then I think our democracy is being debased. So I would say that when we craft this, we are very much aware that even as we liberalise, that we continue to make sure that the debate is serious, robust and rational."
And with an environment that continues to evolve, the government said it is prepared to make further changes, when appropriate. - CNA/vm
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24855.1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)