By Nassim Khadem, Canberra
March 1, 2006
SINGAPORE will get a censored version of Tourism Australia's "So where the bloody hell are you?" campaign because the advertisements do not comply with its strict censorship laws.
When the $180 million campaign is launched in Singapore, a series of Xs will replace the word bloody in print advertisements. The television version will not be aired there.
But the advertisement already appeared uncensored in Singapore's Straits Times last week, when the newspaper ran a story about the campaign.
So far 45,000 foreigners, including 24,000 Americans and 10,000 Britons, have logged on to the campaign website. Tourism Australia spokesman Sasha Grebe said extensive market research had shown the advertisements were a hit.
The Advertising Standards Bureau has received three complaints about the advertisement and it would go before the review board for a decision on whether it breached advertising's code of ethics.
Meanwhile, the Association of Australian Commercial and Media Photographers president North Sullivan said the decision by the advertisement's creators, M&C Saatchi, to use a British photographer to shoot the print advertisements was a "slap in the face for Australian creative talent".
4 comments:
Singabloodypore where is it LOL no wonder more and more Australians are flying MAS .
oh yeah? i jus returned from brisbane and the SQ i was on, was chock full of aussies. hey and the aussie-swedish girl i paid for a lap dance told me she absolutely love singapore! she said she'd work here if we have strip clubs!! damn!
..... my last sq trip only consisted of hot blooded males trying to look down the air stewardess' blouses
Latest News: The govt wants to jail Dr Chee..Where is democracy?
AG wants CSJ imprisoned for “scandalising” courts
28 Feb 06
The Attorney-General (AG) wants to have Dr Chee Soon Juan imprisoned for contempt of court. Dr Chee had criticised the judicial system during his bankruptcy hearing on 10 February 2006.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Goh Chok Tong had sued the SDP leader for defamation in 2002 over the question of a loan made to the Suharto regime in 1997.
The courts had refused to allow Dr Chee to engage the services of Queen's Counsels (QC) even though Dr Chee could not find local lawyers who would dare to represent him. The courts said that the case was “not complex enough” to warrant the admission of a QC. Mr Lee and Mr Goh, however, had engaged a Senior Counsel (Singapore's equivalent of a QC) to act for them.
The courts had also denied Dr Chee an open trial by awarding the case to the plaintiffs in a summary judgment.
In his application the AG applied for the order that Dr Chee “do stand committed to prison or receive such other punishment as the court may impose for his contempt in the face of the court.”
The AG added that Dr Chee had published statements that “scandalised” the Singapore Judiciary.
The hearing is scheduled to take place on 16 March 2006. Dr Chee has applied for an adjournment to seek legal input.
Post a Comment