| September
2003
Censorship review - a bit more loosening, for the wrong reasons
|
|
|
Every
ten years, the government sets up a Censorship Review Committee ("CRC"),
whose remit is to recommend updated guidelines for censorship. The latest such
committee was convened in 2002 and it has just issued its report
[1].
There has naturally been quite a bit of media coverage about its recommendations, but generally, these reports aim to give an overview of the entire report, covering subjects such as violence, nudity and coarse language, as well as the differentiated recommendations for various media, such as theatre, film, broadcasting, even videogames. Channel News Asia’s 20-minute report touched briefly on the CRC’s recommendations about homosexuality, for which program I was asked to say a few words (which were, as usual, edited down to even fewer words). Scanning through the stories in the Straits Times and TODAY, I could see that they also mentioned the CRC’s recommendation about homosexuality as well. An example can be seen in box on the right.* * * * *
|
||
|
In this article, however, I will try to pull together everything that the CRC said about homosexuality, and attempt to fathom what it’s really trying to suggest to the government. In a nutshell, I think they’re saying there should be some loosening up, but to what extent, they remain quite vague. Furthermore, their argument for loosening up was because they felt a majority of people were asking for it, not because there was any value in the principle of freedom of speech. First, let’s read the exact words that appeared in the Report, and I have chosen to put the excerpts from back of the book first, in order to give you an idea of the process the CRC went through. Right at the back of the book, there was mention of a survey commissioned by the CRC and conducted by A C Nielsen in November/December 2002. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 1,000 respondents aged 15 and above, representing a cross section of the population. Among the key findings listed were:
From references in other parts of the Report, I believe the Survey probably included some questions about homosexual content, but these findings were not listed among the "key findings", so I don’t know exactly what they were.
Some interested groups offered their views to the CRC. The arts groups argued for a policy whereby Singaporeans could have access to uncensored works. In stark contrast, the religious groups, whose views were aggregated together in the Report, said they wanted censorship based on the lowest common denominator – meaning, if even a few people (i.e. themselves) object to something, it should be banned! I quote this passage from the Report, summarising the religious groups' submissions:
They don’t know what they are talking about. Take for example, the part about creativity focusing on what edifies, not what degrades. To come to any such judgement, one must refer to a set of values, but the thing about a dynamic, creative society is that there must be an interplay of competing values. What one sees is a fear of change and of being confronted by other views. This insecurity about whether their ideas are strong enough to withstand contest stands in sharp contradiction to their usual claims of eternal, ineluctable truth. Once again, it shows that their idea of a good society is one that is static, undemocratic, illiberal and brutishly reduced to the lowest common denominators. I have long said that if we let these religious dogmatists have their way, it will be the end of us. We think we’ve seen the last of the Talibans in Afghanistan – think again, their ilk is here among us!
The CRC organized their own focus groups to get a feel of public opinion. Another passage from the Report:
I have highlighted the second sentence in bold, for it indicates that most people felt quite opposite to the religious groups. They could see the merit in classification and did not want homosexual themes censored out. They were also making a distinction between representing a sexuality and "promoting" it, though I have always wondered if the imagined fear of "promotion" is nothing more than heterosexual insecurity. * * * * *
Now we come to the main body of the Report. The following is from Section 5.5, entitled "Homosexuality":
|
|
|
|
The
CRC says mostly the right things in their paragraph 5.5.3, but then goes
on to give the government too much room to make silly decisions. This
lapse occurs because the Report uses vague terms like "artistic
merit" or "relevant" or "non-exploitative".
Interpretation will be contentious, and it really shouldn’t be for the
censor to decide. Whether something is artistic or relevant or
exploitative -- whatever the last one means -- it should be for the
consumer to judge, after he has seen the film, play or TV
program.
In other parts of the Report, the CRC recommends a revamp of the film classification system. We currently have G, PG, NC16 and R(A). It recommends one more tier so that it becomes thus: G PG, NC15, M18 and R21. As far as I can see, the Report doesn’t indicate what degree of homosexual content or sex is to be permitted under NC15, M18 and R21. In section 4.2.3 wherein it argues for the renaming of R(A) to R21, it says,
The above seems to imply that "sexually exploitative" means something that exploits sex as the main seller for the film, in other words pornography. It doesn’t seem to mean a film in which a character is sexually exploited… then again, I may be wrong. If the CRC meant pornography, why didn’t they use that word? Paragraph 4.2.4 then discusses the rationale for the new category M18:
The two examples suggest that M18 may include baudy stuff, with not-too-explicit bits of sex. Does this mean that R21 is meant for films containing loads of homosexual storyline and some homosex without having them to suffer cuts? Is R21 to be a "no censorship" category for adults? It seems to point in that direction, otherwise what difference is there between M18 from R21? Yet, the Report doesn’t say so, and that is why I am concerned that the authorities are given too few specifics. In the absence of clear guidelines, they will always play safe and clamp down more than ease off. * * * * *
And,
Look carefully at 2.9. If you’re aware of previous censorship guidelines, e.g. for the internet, you will notice a significant change. In previous guidelines, homosexuality was often lumped together with pornography and deviant sexual practices (which are never defined; they are supposed to be obvious to all). Here, homosexuality is removed from the set that is considered "immoral and demeaning" and placed under "less clear-cut" or "disagreements". The bottom line appears to be that CRC recommends that Singapore continues to have censorship. Certain things, e.g. pornography are to be cut without hesitation. Other things like violence, nudity and homosexuality may be cut, depending on "changing community values". So even R21 is no safe haven.* * * * *
|
|
|
|
And that is why this CRC is considered by many to be a disappointment. At no point in its Report does it address the issue of freedom of speech. It starts off assuming that censorship, even for adults, is necessary and only goes to examine the question of what should be cut and what retained. Even then, it uses vague language, leaving too much leeway to ever-cautious bureaucrats. Here was an opportunity to say certain channels must be "no-censorship" channels. It could have been the theatre where admission prices will by themselves sift away the accidental viewer, especially if coupled with clear forewarnings about provocative content. It could have been a certain classification of film, say R21. But as you can see from this report, the opportunity was wasted. The principle of free expression was never addressed and provision for it not made. Instead, as the story from TODAY newspaper (see yellow box above) tells it, the committee felt bound by what it discerned to be the views of the majority. But it didn't seem to have asked, is that the right and proper test for speech, which many countries consider a human right? Should speech be founded upon liberty or must it wait at the pleasure of others' insecurities? Arts critic Lucy Davis very succinctly pointed out during a press conference by the arts community following the release of CRC 2002, "Censorship manufactures its own consent." How can we therefore refer to the public's consent to censorship as justification for it? It is a dismal thread running through much of
Singapore's modern history: how we've gone overboard with the utilitarian and
pragmatic, and lost sight of some basic principles like justice, equality, freedom of speech and
liberty. We scratch our heads and wonder why Singaporeans are so
utilitarian-minded, so devoid of a sense of belonging, of passion. Why is it a
mystery at all, when we've spent a generation ignoring the very ideals that are
worthy of passion? © Yawning Bread
|
|
|
|
Footnotes
Addenda None
|
|
