Poet Koh Jee Leong wrote on his blog soon afterwards pointing out that while the MDA stopped him from reading his work, it didn't stop the event organisers from publishing it in the event pamphlet.

"I don't understand what logical and consistent rationale could be given for prohibiting the reading, but not the distribution, of a poem," he said.

Thus the poem could be printed, but not read. Of course, that still leaves a glaring inconsistency.

"What did the MDA fear I would do while reading the poem?" asked Jee Leong rhetorically. "Pull down my pants and waggle my dick at the audience? Go up to a straight boy and seduce him into a public same-sex act? Or does a performance, unlike the private reading, of a gay poem insidiously and conspiratorially undermines the precarious heterosexuality of straight members of the audience? It's all laughably outrageous."

He added, "It seems to me that in its half-hearted approach to opening up a tight-arsed society, the government is forced to make untenable and illogical distinctions and categorizations. And to patronize its citizens, as is its wont."

I would further add that such absurdity once again shows the nature of the civil service that we have. They will blindly implement the rules especially on matters that the ministers are obsessed about, e.g. gay speech), but have no guts to tell their political masters either that the rules are nonsensical or that their obsessions are pathological.

I won't be far off if I described our civil service as feudalistic. The mindset is that the chief is always right. Never question him even if what he wants is contrary to the rule of law and the spirit of constitutional freedoms. Carry his balls, haul his shit.

Here is Koh Jee Leong's poem. Please read it ALOUD as your rebuke to the MDA's ban.

Come On, Straight Boy 

Come on, straight boy, and make gay love with me. 
One night of loving will not turn you queer
 if queer is not what you will bend to be. 
Loving a man is but a change of gears.

Why do it with a girl, an undulating 
waterbed, and stress leaks pinched too late? 
Why with an oven she loves regulating, 
you stick your tray of cookies in, and wait?

Men love themselves when they love other men. 
Loving themselves, they know well how to give 
each other head, maneuver two or ten 
round the bend of straightforward relief.

What have you got to lose? Leap, acrobat! 
You can still fall back on pussy cat.

* * * * *

A few days before ContraDiction, the art exhibition Sama-sama opened. Thirteen artists (of whom 12 were gay) participated. One of the works, titled Shitlosophy, encountered problems with the MDA too.

Shitlosophy is an installation work by Samuel Woo and Alecia Neo, comprising a collection of photographs mounted on a wall, all of them depicting somebody in a lavatory. Here is an intimate moment that in fact is nothing unique to any of us. At any moment that we are in the toilet, there are perhaps millions of others who are in a nearly identical situation, feeling the same abdominal fullness and eventual relief. We're part of transient diaspora, yet each of us is completely isolated from everybody else in that great shitting community, too embarrassed to contemplate anyone else doing/being likewise but ourself.

Woo and Neo invite viewers to sit on a bowl, look at themselves in the mirror and see themselves as part of a wider world. Some visitors have had their pictures taken with a Polaroid camera, pinned up to join the constellation of stars.

Top right quadrant of the wall mountings
  

The other photographs censored were all those that had two persons in a lavatory cubicle, reflecting the creative uses we put toilet cubicles to. 

The censorship proceeded despite slapping an R(A) rating on the exhibition -- which means only persons 18 years and older can visit. R(A) is the strictest rating there is. It is thus not a case of applying control because children might see the exhibits. The MDA was not allowing adults to see the exhibits. They might be led to think unconventional thoughts?

* * * * *

It's also worth recounting the experience of dealing with the MDA, blow by blow. The organiser, Siew Meng Ee has written a detailed note, complete with the emails he exchanged with the MDA, which is here as a guest article The constipated MDA. As you can see from what he wrote, he was required to submit each and every photograph in advance to the MDA. They approved the majority of them, typical samples of which you can see on the right side of this page, marked "approved".

 
Not approved from start

They objected to a number of photographs, shown here marked as "not approved from start". One of them, as you can see, is the character with what looks like a police constable's uniform. 

This brings up two different questions: Is it illegal to depict someone in a police uniform? Even if it is, is illegality itself sufficient reason for the MDA to censor the work? That is to say, why is it MDA's job to prevent the artist from committing a crime? What sort of paternalistic state is this?

But let me try to address the first question first. Is it illegal to depict someone in a police uniform? The relevant portion of the Decorations and Uniforms Act says this:

2. ­(1) If any unauthorised person uses or wears ­ 

(a) any insignia of any order instituted by the President; 

(b) any decoration or medal, or the ribbon of any decoration or medal, so instituted; 

(c) any naval, military or air force decoration, medal, bar, clasp or ribbon; 

(d) any badge, stripe or emblem supplied or authorised by the Armed Forces Council or by the President; 

(e) any uniform or part of a uniform of the naval, military, air or police forces; or 

(f) anything so nearly resembling any insignia, decoration, medal, bar, clasp, ribbon, badge, stripe, emblem or uniform or part of a uniform as above-mentioned that it is calculated to deceive, 

etc, etc... that person shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction before a Magistrate’s Court to a fine not exceeding $400 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months.

Potentially, (e) or (f) could apply in this case. Subclause (e) would apply if the model was wearing a policeman's uniform or part thereof. But was it really a policeman's uniform, or did it merely resemble one? You can't tell by looking at it. If you cannot prove that it really was a policeman's uniform and that the model was not authorised to wear it (perhaps the model was himself a police officer?) then there can be no offence under (e).

Subclause (f) would apply if it wasn't a real uniform but only something resembling it. But it must also be "calculated to deceive". Surely any viewer of the exhibit, taking the work in its entirety will see that impersonation is not the intention here, but representation. Who would be so stupid as to not realise that each and every one of these photographs had been posed for the sake of art? So where's the crime? If there is no crime, on what basis should this picture be censored?

But even if there was a crime involved at the moment when the model put on the shirt, showing the photograph would not be a crime. Read the law again; it does not cover the depiction of someone wearing a uniform -- otherwise the photographs that ordinary Singaporeans are going to take of the police marching contingent during the National Day parade will land them, by the thousands, in jail.

The MDA's remit covers the exhibition of the work, not the act of putting on a uniform in order to be photographed. So why is the work being censored? 

Not approved from the start Not approved from the start, but...

This picture of a female in a pinafore was also barred. The MDA thought that it depicted a school student.

So?

Don't schoolgirls use the toilet? On what logic is this to be barred?

The picture of the "basketball player" was also contentious. The MDA said that the Chinese High School  (or is it Hwa Chong Junior College?) insignia was identifiable.

So?

Don't Chinese High School boys use the toilet?

The MDA told the organiser that the school might object. I'm not sure if the MDA said it in so many words, but perhaps the school might think it hurtful to their brand image to be associated with defecation. But this brings up 2 questions again:

Firstly, so what if Chinese High School is offended? If art is never allowed to offend someone somewhere, it can't be art at all. Does the MDA not understand what art is, even as they are charged with regulating it?

Secondly, why is it MDA's job to protect the feelings of Chinese High School? If the school is going to feel offended, then it's a matter between the school and the artist. Why must the MDA be so protective of institutions?

The MDA did suggest a compromise, though. It told the organiser that if the logo was blanked out, the photograph could be passed. The organiser complied.

The remaining pictures that were disallowed depicted two females in the same toilet. You can see 3 examples below.

Not approved from the start

If the above scenes appeared in film, adults would be allowed to see them, under the rating of R21. But since it is art, adults are not allowed. Does this make sense to you?

Approval withdrawn on Day 2

The exhibition opened on the evening of 1 August 2006. The following day, two officials from the MDA came to take a look at the show.

School logo removed, but still the MDA objected

Once again, the "basketball player" became an issue. The Chinese High School insignia had already been blanked out (see picture at left), but the MDA now objected to the logo on his left breast.

But that's a brand name for the shirt, said Siew, the organiser.

The MDA stood its ground: One can still identify the school by the brand name, they said, because maybe that's the only school that buys that brand of basketball singlets.

Maybe, maybe. Take no risks, seemed to be the MDA's position. (Are you, dear reader, rolling your eyes yet?)

And so, the photograph had to be withdrawn from the exhibition.

Then the MDA officials demanded that some other pictures, previously approved, would now have their approvals withdrawn. These were the pictures of 2 men in the same lavatory cubicle, one example of which can be seen at right.

As you can see from Siew's note, the MDA wanted all pictures that were "sexually suggestive" excluded. What is art if the erotic can't be depicted. Look around the great museums in Florence, Paris, New York and London. If you took out the sex, there'd be much much less to see!

Their conservatism, complete insensibility to the nature of art and fickleness in decision merely show the worst features of governance in Singapore. So many powers vested in officials are wide and utterly discretionary. There is little reliance on principles, least of all principles of free expression. Everything depends on the degree of fear that the civil servant of the day feels. Fear that someone somewhere will take offence. Fear that there will be controversy. Fear that tomorrow the minister may say the civil servant has not done enough to implement his wishes or obsessions. Fear.

© Yawning Bread