“Outsiders”,”Solos” and “Lan Yu” are just few of the films which have been banned or subjected to cuts by the Media Authority of Singapore (MDA), never to see the light of day within the island city state in its intended form. Singapore has always practiced strict censorship in regards to all forms of media be it the press, film, television or in most recent times, videogames. The MDA reviews each piece of media on a case to case basis; the rule of thumb is that anything that can be linked to excessive sexual, homosexual, political, excessive violence, racial or religious issues has to be removed. A special category called the “out-of-bounds” markers is the exception in that the media that fall within this area usually gets banned entirely. (“Censorship in Singapore”, 2010). So what is the reasoning behind such strict censorship practices? The authorities claim that censorship is a necessary element of Singapore’s society simply because the general population is still largely conservative and such controversial content would prove too much to handle. But is this truly the case? Is censorship a necessary evil or merely a hindrance to local filmmakers? This paper will attempt to take a closer look at the beast that is censorship and study its role and necessity in 21st century Singapore.

Singapore censorship begun in 1910 as a Theatres Enactment that had all films screened approved by local authorities. In 1923 this evolved into the first censorship office of Malaya, which practiced strict censorship till World War 2. The Cinema Ordinance Act was laid down in 1953 and the Board of Film Censors (BFC), which would subsequently be known as the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts (MICA), was formed. The gaining of self governance in 1959 was a turn towards even tighter censorship with the 1953 act changed into the Cinematograph Films Act. All through the 1960s a large number of films were banned; 60 fell to censorship in 1960 alone compared to the 10 just a year before that and only in the 1970s did censorship begin to loosen. (Uhde & Ng, 2010, pp. 174 – 179).

In realizing the need for a system of rating films and media, a film classification system was born in 1991 along with the formation of the Censorship Review Committee (CRC); a body which would convene every decade to review and keep the country’s classification and censorship system up to date with the changes in society. The initial rating system with General (G), Parental Guidance (PG), and Restricted 18 (R), slowly evolved into the multi-rating system we know today. Most recently, 2009 and 2010 mark important times for Singapore’s censorship. Due to the rapid changes of the media and social world, the CRC has formed at a mid-term point to access the need for change in the area; the results of which will only be known mid this year. (Siew, 2009).
The role of censorship has always been about preventing media that could “put ideas into the heads…” of the people. (Uhde & NG. 2010. P. 175). Simply put, censorship has always been about thought control. In the 1960s, when the country was experiencing “political changes, social turbulence and general uncertainty with the Malaysian Federation, separation from the Federation, and communal riots”, the justification for having stringent censorship so as to not allow “unwanted” and “undesirable” influences that distract from the goal of industralisation and nation building could arguably be valid and necessary. (Uhde & NG. 2010. p. 176).

Today however, with Singapore being one of the more developed countries in Asia, more focus has been placed in arts, media and culture. Yet despite having taken a significant turn towards a more “liberal” stance in terms of censorship by adopting classification, films in Singapore still seem to have trouble getting past the censors when it comes to certain themes or issues. This is especially true for local films because of the suggested double standard, which will be discussed later in the paper, that local censorship authorities practice.

In general, films that fall within the classification system tend to have little trouble in this regard, it is when films end up beyond the R21 mark and fall within the “out-of-bounds” area that the issues arise. When this happens, films are either asked to make cuts in order to fit in to one of the existing categories or are outright banned altogether. The result of this is that some are led to think that this change that MDA has made in moving to classification is merely cosmetic while the conservative mindset inherent within the body still remains unchanged.

According to Tan (2007), in reference to the latest released 2003 report from the CRC, censorship is necessary today in order to maintain social order, to safeguard moral values of society, to protect multiracialism and to protect the vulnerable like the young. Apparently, censorship is given this role because the large majority of Singaporeans are still too conservative to accept such content and this “majority” looks to the government to regulate and control the flow of such content within the society. The problem with this justification is that the constitution of material that is deemed unsuitable seems arbitrarily decided based on the authorities’ benchmark on suitability contrary to what they claim.

Ironically, the recommendations made by the Censorship Review Committee of 2002 provided some interesting results regarding censorship. The report shows through surveys done, that 53 percent of participants wanted less censorship. Half of the participants also felt that homosexual related content was fine as long as it was not exploitative in nature and apart from the religious bodies, most people felt that such content could be shown in public under an adequate rating; echoing the opinion voiced by certain groups that homosexual themed films should see the light of day in the commercial world. (Au, 2003).

However, despite such results, homosexual related content remains largely excluded from the film industry in Singapore with numerous such films like “Solos” and “Blind Pig Who Wants to Fly”, banned entirely. In relation to such content, MDA has apparently placed the terms exploitative and promoting homosexuality under such large all encompassing umbrellas that render almost any homosexual content as such. As stated by Au (2009), it seems like any content that depicts homosexuals as normal human beings who experience happiness is deemed as a promotion of homosexuality.

An example given by Au (2009), deals with the issue of a film “Devotee” in which there was a scene that MDA had claimed to be explicit in nature. In fact, the scene merely consisted of implied sexual intercourse through depiction of the position of two male bodies and involved absolutely no frontal nudity; a method which is commonly seen in many heterosexual movies.

In considering the facts, one cannot help but question if the censorship authorities are truly acting out the will of the majority or is it that these supposed “heartlanders” are merely an idealistic entity and clever political move to make people think the way they want them to think, resulting in people following and accepting such ideals in fear of being “different” than the rest of the community?

A closer look into the other reasons given for the necessity of censorship renders them to seem unsound as well. In terms of social order, although to a lesser degree, the censorship body finds issue with what they deem to be overtly violent films in fear that they may instill violent behavior amongst the people. The debate in regards to the effects of violence in media has been ever ongoing but according to Hill (1997), a study that was carried out showed that most people who watch violent films can fully distinguish between real violence and fictional violence. In fact, people who enjoy watching violent movies all tend to abhor actual violence.

Contrary to MDAs reasoning, violence in films tends to instill stronger emotions from audiences because they grow to care and feel for the character. Instead, it is violence that is viewed in news reports that desensitizes the viewer because of their “out of context” nature. To simply say that the films depicting violence influence the individual beyond mere thought and motivates acts that threaten social order is as Tan (2009), puts it, an exaggeration motivated by paranoia. (p. 82)

“Party political films”; that is, “films that are made by any person and directed towards any political end in Singapore”, have long been banned without hesitation as well. (Uhde & Ng, 2010. p. 181). Numerous films such as “Vision of Persistence” (2002), “Singapore Rebel” (2005) and “Zahari’s 17 Years” (2006), all of which revolve around members of political opposition in Singapore come under this umbrella. However, in 2005 a political documentary series by Channel News Asia managed to fall outside of what constitutes a party political film. The interesting thing to note here is that what is different in this case, is that the show was about Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party and its ministers instead of any other opposition members. The show was called to be a depiction of current affairs and was hence permitted. This contradictory episode further backs up the claim of the subjectivity and ambiguous nature of the arbitrary decision making of authorities when it comes to what falls into what category of censorship.

It is a known fact that films like the animated film “Princess”, which deal with racial or religious issues are as likely to fall from the ban hammer in Singapore as those that contain content mentioned above. In claiming to protect multiracialism, Singapore has always done so by avoiding the subject altogether instead of actively engaging it and developing understanding between the races. The method of maintaining multiracial harmony is reflected here in the way race and religion related content films are censored. What this effectively does is that instead of protecting multiracial harmony, authorities have deprived the chance for people to address existing issues in Singapore’s society that have long been swept under the carpet. It disallows them to engage in critical thinking therefore making the so called democratic society a “dead society” as expressed by Tan (2009) in reference to “The Satanic Verses” by Salman Rushdie, which has also been banned in Singapore.

Swedish film “An Extraordinary Study of Human Degradation” was made to cut its sex scene by the MDA before allowing its screening in the 22nd Singapore International Film Festival (SIFF). Excessive sexual content goes against what authorities claim to be moral values of society and have to be censored. As Tan (2009) explains, an individual’s moral standards are highly ambiguous and can hardly be ascertained as a definite truth more so with the moral standards of an entire society. Whose standards then are we talking about? The subjectivity of the censorship body here is unquestionable. But the most contradicting part is that these moral values, were instilled in the people by things like thought control through censorship, and to now have censorship authorities claim that censorship is necessary to protect the very same moral values is certainly an irony.

The protection of the young might be the only reasoning that holds up against scrutiny. The young are extremely impressionable and easily influenced by whatever they come into contact with. Hence, it is necessary to watch over them to ensure that material unsuitable for their age group is either held back from them, or viewed under the appropriate guidance. The problem however is that this is a role that does not belong to the censorship authorities. In one of the surveys conducted by the 2002 CRC, the results reflected that 71 percent of participants felt that parents were the ones responsible for what children are exposed to. Add to that is the fact that the classification and ratings system exist for this very reason. Once again, the facts show that despite all their reasoning for the necessity of the current censorship system, when placed under scrutiny what it points to is a draconian and arbitrary act of thought control and political safeguards in regards to content that challenges the conservative mindset of the authorities rather than what is claimed. As Davies (2004) puts it, “Censorship is a basic form of thought control, thought control is a basic form of dictatorial government.” (as cited in Tan, 2009, p. 83)

So it seems the authorities practice somewhat draconian methods of censorship while claiming to act in line with the will of the people. But how is that a hindrance to local filmmakers? Strict censorship laws are nothing new in Asia. However in countries such as Hong Kong and Korea; two of the more prominent Asian film industries, it has been shown that the relaxation in censorship laws factor in as a major reason for the success of their respective industries.

In the case of Hong Kong cinema, its general freedom from governmental censorship has for a long time allowed it the breathing room to create wonderful films that contain depiction of violence, sex and that involved controversial topics like homosexuality, religion and even politics. It is without a doubt one of the reasons why Hong Kong’s film industry was able to flourish. But more significant to Singapore’s situation, is the case of the film industry of South Korea. From Japanese invasion to Communism to Militarism, South Korea has always had to deal with political interference in regards to the arts, which of course included films. Held back by censorship the country used to produce films that ranged from propaganda material to films that failed to capture the hearts and attention of the Korean public. It was only during the 1990s that saw a drastic change in the way films were allowed to tell stories. The breaking free from military rule and into democracy saw the lifting of censorship which gave unprecedented freedom to filmmakers to weave their films around culture, modernization, the nation and even politics. Robinson (2005) states that this was what effectively led to the now commonly known Korean Wave. This freedom is also what brought Korean cinema to new heights with movies such as “Shiri” (1999) and “Joint Security Area” (2000), both of which had characters revolving around the political division of North and South Korea and both of which were huge successes in the Korean box office. (pp 25 – 29)

By using Korea’s evolution in the film industry with the liberalization of censorship as an example, the possibilities of the direction that the local film industry can go upon a similar lifting of censorship is clear. Yet despite Singapore proclaiming to be a democratic society and despite the so called “liberalization” of its censorship system, the control in content by the authorities remain dogmatic and strict due largely to what director to “Outsiders” 2004, Sam Loh calls a “Double Stardard” practiced by censorship authorities. In an interview with him, Sam Loh who withdrew his film from the 2004 SIFF due to MDA insisting that cuts had to be made, laments how the MDA would be doubly strict when dealing with local made films. When given some thought it is not difficult to see where that there is truth in the statement. Films such as “Da Vinci Code” and “Brokeback Mountain” which deal with religious and homosexual themes respectively would not be able to pass the censors if local counterparts were made. This added strictness to the already conservative boundaries of the censorship system leads to one undesirable effect in local filmmakers – Self Censorship. Because filmmakers here are consciously aware that numerous kinds of content may render their film unsuitable as deemed by the censors, most of them practice self censorship before the film is even made. By ruling out what they think cannot be done they effectively remove possibilities to potential stories, and that is ultimately a factor that kills off what may otherwise be potentially good films. Tripathi (2002) aptly expresses, “Singapore’s leadership bemoans the lack of creativity among its people, and exhorts them to dare to be different. But when some do, the establishment comes down upon them, because it fears spontaneity.”

In conclusion, the censorship in Singapore has certainly come a long way to reach where it is today but despite the claims of moving from cutting to classifying, the basic mindset of MDA in dealing with censorship remains very much subjective and arbitrary; seemingly still based on politics and thought control. The only difference is having the responsibility of cutting shifted to the distributors or filmmakers themselves. In placing the justifications for such censorship under scrutiny, the reasons for its necessity fall apart and make it seem to truly be a hindrance that limits local filmmakers. With Korean and Hong Kong Cinema as prime examples of the possibilities, in order for any hope of having the local film industry go anywhere from here, censorship authorities need to stop thinking of Singaporeans as immature, ignorant, narrow minded and intolerant and implement changes that go beyond a mere facelift in the censorship system that reflects the democratic society that Singapore claims to be. Though certainly not the sole factor that determines the success of local cinema, a lifting of dogmatic censorship and the moving towards a more refined classification system to let viewers actively choose what to view will certainly prove to be a great step forward in the right direction. After all, censorship should be a matter of choice not to mention the impracticality of it all in today’s internet age. With the government openly stating they wish to head towards more freedom in censorship and with the CRC currently holding a review as this paper is being written, there is at least some hope that things may turn for the better…

Written by Tan Quancai Eugene

References
Books
Hill A. (1997). Shocking Entertainment: Viewer Response to Violent Movies. United Kingdom: John Libbey Media.

Robinson M. (2005). Contemporary Cultural Production in South Korea: Vanishing Meta-Narratives of Nation. Chi-Yun S. & Stringer J. (Eds). New Korean Cinema (pp. 15 – 31). Great Britain: Edinburgh University Press.

Tan K.P. (2007). Censorship in Whose Name? Tan K.P. (Ed). Renaissance Singapore? (pp. 71 – 94). Singapore: NUS Press

Uhde J. & Ng Y.U. (2010). Latent Images: Film in Singapore. Singapore: NUS Press.

Web
Au W.P. (November 2009). Censorship Review – A Bit More Loosening for the Wrong Reasons. Retrevied 31th Januray 2010 from Yawning Bread: http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2003/yax-343.htm

Au W.P. (August 2009). Film Censors Behaving Like Bullies. Retreived 30th January 2010 from Yawning Bread: http://www.yawningbread.org/index2.htm

Au W.P. (September 2009). Film Correspondance Part 1. Retrevied 30th Januray 2010 from Yawning Bread: http://www.yawningbread.org/index2.htm

Au W.P. (November 2009). Film Correspondance Part 2. Retrevied 30th Januray 2010 from Yawning Bread: http://www.yawningbread.org/index2.htm

Board of Film Censors. (2010). Retrieved 30th January 2010 from MDA website: http://www.mda.gov.sg/Industry/Films/Classification/Pages/BoardofFilmClassification.aspx
Censorship in Singapore. (2010). Retrieved 30th January 2010 from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Singapore

Classification Ratings for Films and Videos. (2010). Retrieved 30th January 2010 from MDA website: http://www.mda.gov.sg/Industry/Films/Classification/Pages/ClassificationRatings.aspx

OB Marker. (2010). Retreived 31st January 2010 from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OB_marker

Philips R. (April 2000). Film Festival Director About Censorship in Singapore. Retrieved 31st January 2010 from Singapore Window: http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/021214af.htm

Pravda (2007 April 23). No homosexual movie to be shown at Singapore film festival. Posted to: http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/archive/2007/04/23/no-homosexual-movie-to-be-shown-at-singapore-film-festival.html

Ratnala T.N. (November 1997). Film Classification for Restricted, [Restricted] (Artistic) Category Retrieved 31st January 2010 from Singapore Infopedia: http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_15_2004-12-27.html

Siew S. (September 2009). Censorship Review Committee. Retrieved 31st January 2010 from Singapore Infopedia: http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_1571_2009-09-18.html

Tripathi S. (December 2002). Artistic Ambitions Don’t Play Well in Uptight Singapore: http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/021214af.htm

Wee S. L. (April 2007). Singapore Censors two films under Sex, Religion. Retrieved 31st January 2010: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSIN22266420070420
Wisekwai (2009 April 10). Singapore Fest Drops Six Titles Over Censorship. Posted to: http://thaifilmjournal.blogspot.com/2009/04/singapore-fest-drops-six-titles-over.html