1. í How should the arts and media
be regulated to balance artistic
expression and societal harmony?
Singapore’s approach towards cen-
sorship has changed over the
years. Travel, globalisation and
the Internet have given citizens
more exposure to alternative con-
tent, and in many cases made out-
right bans ineffective.
Today the Media Development
Authority (MDA) – the chief regu-
latory body – is inclined to re-
strict rather than censor a contro-
versial work, so that it can be
watched by paying adults while
kept away from the young. It also
takes into account artistic merit
and context in its decisions.
Nonetheless, it still wields the
scissors in several cases – when of-
fence is caused to any race or reli-
gion, moral values are challenged
through pornography and deviant
sexual practices, or when the
national interest is felt to be un-
der threat.
There are some grey areas. For
example, in the area of sexual con-
tent and homosexuality, greater
leeway has been given in recent
years to non-exploitative themes
or content targeting adults.
As a restriction on artists’ free-
dom to create and consumers’
freedom of choice, censorship has
always been a divisive subject.
Since the early 1980s, when the
first major review of censorship
policy was conducted, Singapore-
ans have always disagreed on whe-
ther the nanny state is liberalising
too fast or opening up too slowly.
The most recent review in 2010
continued to hold that censorship
is necessary. The report by the
17-member committee of
high-ranking individuals from a
cross-section of society noted
that “even in liberal societies, cen-
sorship exists. Germany bans the
use of Nazi symbols. Australia
blocks a variety of what it deems
to be undesirable websites”.
The committee, whose report
the Government accepted, noted
that “censorship marks the bound-
aries that each society believes
should not be crossed, and each
society must make its own choic-
es”.
At the same time, it stated that
any censorship decision “to be ac-
cepted as valid, must be seen to re-
flect widely held sentiments” in
the society. It noted: “Censorship
is a necessary tool, but a blunt
one. Its application, while with
determination, should be with
regret.”
While an increasing number of
Singaporeans are now demanding
freer access to content and more
creative space for self-expression,
there are also many in this mul-
ti-racial, multi-religious society
who find censorship acceptable
and do not want moral values to
be undermined.
The Government’s position has
always been that it needs to bal-
ance different notions of what is
acceptable for public viewing.
Nonetheless, in recent years it
has recognised that having a more
creative and less restrictive envi-
ronment can attract and keep tal-
ent.
It has tried to involve industry
players and the community more
actively in regulating content. It
has also called on parents to filter
what their children are watching
and give appropriate guidance.
30 years of tug and push
The Government has taken a grad-
ual and cautious approach to relax-
ing film, media and arts censor-
ship.
Comments made in the early
1980s during the first major cen-
sorship review by then Culture
Minister S. Dhanabalan and his
Minister of State Fong Sip Chee
still hold remarkably true.
Mr Dhanabalan said in 1981:
“We will continue to follow a fair-
ly conservative policy. In this re-
spect, while it may deprive some
of the fun, it would probably
cause less damage than if we
over-liberalise.”
Major Fong reflected the Gov-
ernment’s stand as the final arbi-
ter of what to snip and what to
keep back in 1982, when he called
this authority “a social obligation
incumbent upon an elected gov-
ernment which carries a mandate
from a multi-racial, multi-reli-
gious society”.
Hence liberalisation of the arts
and media has unfolded at what
seems like a glacial pace to some.
Until the 1990s, all films and vide-
os had to be suitably snipped for
child viewers before general
release.
Age-appropriate film ratings
with fewer cuts – including the re-
stricted viewing of films for those
aged 21 and above – was intro-
duced in 1991. To this day, R21
films cannot be screened in heart-
land cinemas, only in downtown
ones.
A ratings system for videos
was introduced only in 2004, due
to their accessibility to the young
at home and fears of abuse by dis-
tributors. However, videos are rat-
ed only up to M18 and R21 videos
cannot be sold here.
Media and art forms with wid-
er reach tend to face stricter regu-
lation. More leeway is given to
niche areas like theatre, publica-
tions and cable TV, as compared
to films, video or free-to-air TV.
One milestone in the rollback
of theatre censorship was the stag-
ing of playwright Tan Tarn How’s
political satire The Lady Of Soul
And Her Ultimate “S” Machine in
1993, following a censorship re-
view the previous year.
The TheatreWorks play was
about a Singapore-like country’s
search for a soul, and its charac-
ters included a live sex doll. It was
previously banned. Under new
guidelines recommending greater
artistic freedom and self-regula-
tion for established theatre
groups, the play was passed uncut
and given an R rating. In theatre,
the R rating restricts audiences to
those over 18.
In 1999, another threshold was
crossed. The late Paddy Chew – a
gay man and the first Singaporean
Aids victim to come out – bared
his life story in The Necessary
Stage’s docudrama Completely
With/Out Character. It was
passed clean. In comparison, a
decade earlier, TheatreWorks’
Safe Sex double-bill on Aids had
to have its gay themes down-
played before it could be staged.
In 2004, the green light was
given to the frank sex talk of
American imports Cosmopolitan
magazine and the TV drama Sex
And The City, as recommended
by the previous year’s censorship
review committee. A snipped ver-
sion of the hit TV series was later
shown by cable TV channel HBO.
Reactions to all these develop-
ments have been mixed. Liberals,
such as those in the arts communi-
ty, have been disappointed that
age-appropriate ratings have not
stopped certain works from being
snipped or banned, in what is felt
to be an inconsistent manner.
At the other extreme are con-
servatives who support censor-
ship. In 1991, a conservative back-
lash led to the age limit for the
newly introduced R rating for
films being raised from 18 to 21 –
one of the highest, if not the high-
est, among countries with a film
ratings system.
In 2010, the Government cited
feedback from this group as the
reason for not allowing R21 films
into the heartland.
The Government remains the
cultural gatekeeper. Barring few
exceptions, all films, performanc-
es and publications need a licence
from the MDA. But in considera-
tion of how fast social values are
evolving, wide-ranging censor-
ship reviews of film, media and
the arts now take place more fre-
quently instead of once in 10
years. The last two reviews were
in 2003 and 2010.
Managing dialogue
In general, artists would acknow-
ledge that outright bans have been
less common in recent years.
This is due to two factors. One
is the use of devices such as rat-
ings and consumer advisories, to
separate interested audiences
from those who may be offended
by a work.
Another is the trend towards
self-regulation and community
regulation. For example, estab-
lished theatre groups are exempt-
ed from submitting their scripts
for vetting. A cross-section of
prominent citizens has also been
appointed to panels that give ad-
vice on how sensitive works
should be regulated.
However, self-regulation is crit-
icised as a disguised form of
self-censorship, requiring artists
to second-guess what the state
considers to be out of bounds.
On community regulation, the
criticism is that citizen panels are
dominated by people who encoun-
ter the arts as audiences, and crea-
tive professionals are under-repre-
sented.
The last two censorship review
committees recommended broad-
ening public participation in these
panels by allowing for some mem-
bers to be nominated by the pub-
lic, instead of being selected by
the MDA. But this has not been
taken up.
In place of outright bans, the
arts community has highlighted a
growing trend of indirect censor-
ship through proxies like govern-
ment-sponsored theatre venues,
which are able to influence the
content of productions through
the funding they give out.
Liberals contend that more dia-
logue among citizens is needed on
potentially offensive content. The
Government’s role, they argue,
should be to facilitate dialogue in-
stead of reactively censoring con-
tent when people complain.
The arts community proposed
a system of mediation in 2010,
where the regulatory agency
brings the complainant and crea-
tors of a work together to discuss
their differences.
Dialogue, in principle, is a good
thing, and if done in a rational,
considered manner can strength-
en a society’s resilience.
But the problem with this medi-
ation model is that if parties con-
tinue to disagree, there is nothing
to stop a member of the public
from taking to court an arts group
for an objectionable work, citing
obscenity or sedition laws.
As media academic Ang Peng
Hwa has pointed out, courts do
not make the best regulators of
art, compared to the MDA system
of censorship which takes feed-
back from professionals with
some connection to the media and
the arts.
Amid the flurry of debate, the
strength of Singapore’s approach
to censorship and regulation has
always been the recognition that
this is an open economy and socie-
ty, and hence the need to both
consult widely and keep pace with
the times.
This is something that policy-
makers should hold to when navi-
gating society’s diverse values
and expectations.
clare@sph.com.sg
JOIN us for The Big Quiz!
For registration details, news
reports on school talks and
students’ responses, go to
www.straitstimes.com/
thebigquiz/
í View clips from school talks
at www.razortv.com.sg
í Student teams will compete
for the top cash prize of $5,000
and a trophy. The next best
teams will receive $3,000,
$1,000 and $500 respectively.
The competition is open to
students in the first year of
junior college or the equivalent,
such as Year 5 of a six-year
integrated programme.
The teams, comprising three
students and a reserve, will slug
it out over four rounds this
month and the next.
Questions will be based on
reports in The Straits Times.
í Upcoming talks: July 13,
National Junior College; July 20,
Anglo-Chinese Junior College.
Next week’s primer topic is
scientific fraud. Readers with
questions on primer topics can
e-mail them to
stprojects@sph.com.sg
By CLARISSA OON
SENIOR WRITER
In 2004, the green light was given to the
frank sex talk of American imports
Cosmopolitan magazine and the TV drama
Sex And The City (above), as recommended
by the previous year’s censorship review
committee. A snipped version of the hit TV
series was later shown by cable TV channel
HBO
Think you know it all? Here’s your chance
PHOTO: HBO
This primer is the seventh instalment of a
12-part series in the Opinion pages, in the
lead-up to The Straits Times-Ministry of
Education National Current Affairs Quiz.
PRIMER
The bumpy road
of censorship
1982
■ Call to set up citizen
committees to advise on
censorship of film,
books and recorded
music. These bodies are
eventually set up over
the years.
■ Banned or censored films to be allowed to be screened by groups
like film, literary and university societies, subject to conditions such
as age restrictions. This paves the way for nationwide film
classification later on.
reviews and changes
BOOK
BOOK
1991
■ NC16 film rating introduced
to restrict children under 16
from watching PG films with
more mature themes.
■ National Arts Council
appointed the vetting authority
for plays, with a panel of citizen
experts to advise it. Theatre
groups with proven track
records need not submit scripts
for vetting, and are asked to
practise self-regulation.
■ TV censorship set to be as
strict or stricter than for film.
Citizen advisory body to set
standards for TV and radio.
2010-2012
■ General film classification
introduced in July with three
ratings: G (suitable for all), PG
(parental guidance advised) and
Restricted for films that can be
shown without excessive cuts
for those aged 18 and above.
■Two months later, the age limit
is raised to 21 after cinemas
become flooded with soft-core
porn films from Hong Kong.
■ The revised R (Artistic)
category, now known as R21,
allows adult films with artistic
merit to be shown downtown,
away from HDB estates.
1992-1993
■ New M18 (Mature 18) rating
for films for those aged 18 and
above.
■ Full video classification similar
to that for film introduced. Sale
of videos allowed up to M18 only.
■ “16” and “18” ratings
introduced for mature content
on cable TV. “18” rated
programmes can
be shown only
between 10pm
and 6am.
■ Ten-year
no-funding rule on
performance art
and forum theatre
lifted.
2003-2004
PHOTOS: PARAMOUNT PICTURES, GOLDEN VILLAGE, UNIVERSAL PICTURES GRAPHICS: LIM YONG
■ R21 content to be allowed on
TV if it is video-on-demand,
where viewers pay to watch
specific programmes.*
■ New PG13 advisory rating
introduced for film, television
(free-to-air and pay TV) and
video, indicating content is
suitable for children aged 13 and
above. On free-to-air TV, PG13
programmes can be shown only
after 10pm.
■ Ratings symbols standardised
across film, television and video
to G, PG, PG13 and NC16, M18,
R21.
■ Term licensing for selected
arts groups so they don’t have
to send scripts for vetting and
don’t need to apply for a
performance permit for every
show.*
■ An arts appeal committee to
have final say when it comes to
hearing appeals against
regulatory decisions made by
the authorities.*
NOTE: *Not implemented yet
A36 OOPPIINNIIOONN F R I D A Y , J U L Y 6 , 2 0 1 2