The Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS) has been in the news recently for what some consider an overreaction toward an ad by the Pink Dot movement, specifically the slogan "Freedom to love".

Much of the criticism was directed at the reason given for ASAS's call for the slogan to be removed, and the general lack of transparency.

The reason given for the call to remove the slogan was this:

"However, the advertisement in question also includes the statement, ‘Supporting the freedom to love.’ which may affect public sensitivities due to the issues at hand."

Now, that is a rather vague statement.

A situation that becomes worse when you realise there was no clear method in which they defined "public sensitivities" or how many people were counselled before making the decision.

That's where this particular tidbit comes into the picture:

One of the members of famed anti-Pink Dot Facebook group, aptly named "We are against Pink Dot" (WAAPD), is coincidentally also the chairman of ASAS:

Why is this troubling?

Now, it could well be that Tan is simply there to observe and follow the posts from active members of the group, and may not personally support the group's central objectives or interests.

That said, some might rightly wonder whether a group a person joins should influence whether he can be part of regulatory bodies, and that is a perfectly valid question.

It is good to have different views in a body such as ASAS, that claims to represent the best interests for Singaporeans in general.

But if you're surrounding yourself with a certain type of group that makes it their entire focus to oppose a certain movement or event, their "public sensitivities" might not be indicative of those that the rest of the nation might have.

And here's where there may possibly be a:

The problems start to pile up when you take a look at ASAS's decision-making process.

According to writer Ovidia Yu, who called ASAS, the person she spoke to on the phone couldn't confirm whether the decision was made by a group of people collectively, or just one person.

Furthermore, the regulation body's very own process acknowledges the possibility of vested interest, but isn't clear on what happens if the Chairman himself, might potentially have personal vested interests.

"Any member of ASAS who has a vested interest in a dispute must immediately declare that interest and be absent from all deliberations. The Chairman is responsible for ensuring that any council member of ASAS who has a vested interest will absent himself from all deliberations."

Welp.

Here are totally unrelated but equally interesting articles:

The Caveman Review: Masks your face can eat

Here are 14 moving images of people crying because they’re so happy they just can’t

Related articles:

ASAS advised Cathay to remove Pink Dot slogan as it ‘may affect public sensitivities’

Cathay Cineleisure puts up 8-metre long Pink Dot ad at front entrance

Watchdog’s decision to get Pink Dot slogan on Cathay ad amended questioned

Cathay asked to amend Pink Dot ad as ‘freedom to love’ slogan undermines ‘importance of family’

Cathay issues statement in support of Pink Dot ad in Cineleisure

Pink Dot ad in Cineleisure sparks calls to report matter to police

Photo by Ng Yi Shu

If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get the latest updates.