| July 2004
Film censorship: 'Formula 17' banned
|
|
|
There are two letters here. The first, I wrote to the editor of TODAY newspaper. It was not
published. The second, a reader of Yawning Bread, living in Singapore,
also wrote to the editor of TODAY. It was not published either.
|
||
|
Dear editor,
This letter submitted for publication: I refer to your story "Banned Formula" in your edition of 21 July. Once again, we have seen censorship in action. The Films Appeal Committee's reason for banning the film Formula 17, as reported by Today, was that it created an illusion of a homosexual utopia, that everyone in the film was homosexual, and that no negative aspects of the lifestyle were portrayed. In effect, the FAC prescribed what messages would be allowed to reach Singapore audiences: that only heterosexual utopia could be portrayed, and that all films with gay themes must contain negative aspects. And while films where every character is heterosexual is commonplace, even though in real life, there is no such world, films where everyone is homosexual are too illusory and too utopian to be permitted. One wonders if they'd next ban Cinderella fairy tales and shoot-em-up flicks (where the good guys always win over the bad guys) for after all, aren't they equally illusory and utopian? Censorship closes minds. People are denied the chance to examine alternatives, not to mention perpetuating a culture of unspeakability and discrimination that runs counter to expressed desires to be a creative, cosmopolitan city. The authorities will likely plead that the FAC is meant to represent societal opinion, and therefore it wasn't an act of the government to confirm the banning of the film. Two points then arise: Firstly, who appointed the members of the FAC and how were they chosen? Secondly, social censorship is just as pernicious as governmental censorship. We have set up a system that entrenches group-think in our society by insisting that messages are disallowed if they breach the comfort levels of the majority. Other, more vibrant, creative societies have seen the danger of this, which is why freedom of speech as a right defended against majoritarian encroachment is an article of faith in their civic and judicial systems. And while we're at it, let us not plead Asian values again. The banned film was from Taiwan, a Chinese environment, for goodness sakes. How come they can think, and we can't? * * * * * Dear Sir, I refer to the article "Banned Formula" on 21 July 2004. I am dismayed to learn of the Films Appeal [sic] Committee’s (FAC) draconian ruling to uphold the ban on the movie Formula 17 (the film apparently did not appeal to some members of the committee). They have justified their decision to do so by claiming that the majority of Singaporeans are not receptive to homosexual lifestyles’ (a phrase that no one has yet defined). Even if one were to concede this point (despite the fact that survey techniques and sources were not cited), the argument is inherently flawed. Judging from the many incensed letters pouring into the forum pages of our newspapers regarding the influx of prostitutes into the heartlands, one could say that large numbers of Singaporeans are morally opposed to prostitution. Yet, there is a movie called "Whore" premiering in cinemas soon, which purportedly "exposes the unknown secrets behind the world’s oldest profession". If Singaporeans in general are opposed to prostitution, why is a movie about it being allowed? What about movies like "Pretty Woman", whose central character is a prostitute though "no negative aspects of the lifestyle are portrayed"? Why are these movies not banned on the same moral grounds of which Formula 17 is a victim? Clearly, the FAC is operating under blatant double standards. What is perhaps most reprehensible about the FAC’s recent ruling is the ignorance and bigotry evidenced by their statement. By implying that there are "negative aspects of the [homosexual] lifestyle", they perpetuate the erroneous notion that gay persons are abnormal and lead disordered lives. This is despite the fact that the majority of scientific and medical opinions indicate otherwise, and that no less eminent a figure as PM Goh has asserted that gay persons are "like you and me". Officials have often cautioned that the pace of legislative change affecting gay persons must follow rather than precede changes in general societal acceptance. The implicit assumption is that the administration would be accepting of gay Singaporeans (yes, they are Singaporeans too!) if the people on the street were. Unfortunately, this is like removing all the Aces (or Queens, as the case may be) from a pack of cards, then asking the players to deal a Royal Flush! By narrowing the ideological space, agencies like the FAC limit access of the general populace to the differing viewpoints required for the people to evaluate their mindsets about issues like homosexuality. In this sense, the FAC has abused its powers to perpetuate a moralistic societal agenda, which not only does not protect anyone, but that hurts a whole subgroup. Though I suspect that the FAC may stick to its guns simply for fear, lest it be seen as having made a misguided decision, I nevertheless strongly urge it to reconsider its decision and to retract its pejorative statement. Sincerely, © Yawning Bread
|
|
|
|
Footnotes
Addenda None
|
|
