Singapore's state censor, the orwellian-named Media Development Authority (MDA), has confirmed that a book of photographs by Leslie Kee has been banned. In its public statement, the MDA made it sound as if the book was alarmingly pornographic. Kee, a Singaporean, is a world-famous photographer of celebrities, having worked in Tokyo and New York.

For this book, "Superstars", he got about 300 Asian artistes to pose, many of them his friends, with all proceeds going towards helping victims of the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami.

My friend Gilbert Cheah tried to purchase the book at Kinokuniya bookstore -- I first mentioned this in the article Bedside reading -- but was told that it wasn't available because of the Singapore government's edict. He then wrote to the Straits Times, which printed his letter on 19 December 2006:

19 December 2006
Straits Times Forum (print edition)

No reason to ban Leslie Kee's book, SuperStar

I went to the Kinokuniya bookstore on Saturday to look for the much-publicised book, SuperStar, by Leslie Kee, the internationally-acclaimed photographer who was born in Singapore.

I was told the book has been banned in Singapore. I was stunned as it contains nothing more salacious than a few wisps of pubic hair of Hong Kong actors and the most 'revealing' shot would be the one of Aaron Kwok standing with jeans covering his groin.

Kwok wasn't even naked; he was wearing black trunks that were removed digitally in the final picture, and this picture has been reprinted in newspapers here. Yet the censors, for some reason, decided that this book is not suitable for Singaporeans.

The book also includes pictures of other (fully-clothed) Asian stars such as Zhang Ziyi and Shu Qi, singer Faye Wong and action star Tony Jaa. Funds from sales of the book will be donated to victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.

Given that this book is priced at more than $400, it is highly unlikely that many Singaporeans would be exposed to it, much less minors. Despite such a naturally-narrow potential audience of ostensibly sophisticated and affluent people, the book was banned.

Kee is one of the most watched and admired photographers today. He has contributed to top magazines worldwide, and his advertising clients include Shiseido, Dunhill, Levis, Sony, Burberry, Harrods, De Beers and Pepsi. He has photographed major celebrities, such as Gong Li, Faye Wong, Sandy Lam, Naomi Campbell, Paris Hilton, Nicholas Tse, Quentin Tarantino and Ayumi Hamasaki.

What does this latest ban say about this country? It defies logic or reason.

How does this fit in with the proclamations of openness, and plans to make Singapore a truly global, world-class city?

Gilbert Cheah Kim Kee

 
The MDA's reply was published on 21 December:

21 Dec 2006 
Straits Times Forum (print edition)

Book banned because of full-nudity photos

I refer to Mr Gilbert Cheah's letter (ST, Dec 19) asking why Leslie Kee's book of photographs, Superstars, was banned.

The writer said that the book 'contains nothing more salacious than a few wisps of pubic hair' and that the 'most revealing shot' was that of Aaron Kwok standing with jeans covering his groin.

This is certainly not an accurate assessment of the book. It contains numerous pictures of Asian personalities in full nudity with pubic hair and genitals clearly visible. And contrary to the writer's view, Kwok's picture, which received media attention, is the least revealing of the lot.

The importer, Region Periodicals, consulted the Media Development Authority (MDA). Our view is that such a book is not suitable for public display and sale as the explicit photos of full nudity exceed what is presently allowed for sale in Singapore.

We would like to assure the writer that there are many photographic publications available in the market which are tasteful and artistically executed.

MDA will continue to work with the industry to provide choice to consumers while ensuring that the content available is within the acceptable norms of society.

A. R. Madeei
Assistant Director (Publications)
Media Content Division
Media Development Authority

 
What this boils down to are three basic questions: 

• The first is a question of fact. Does the book contain "numerous pictures of Asian personalities in full nudity with pubic hair and genitals clearly visible" as claimed by Madeei? 
   
• The second is, regardless of whether some pictures had frontal nudity, whether it is outside the "acceptable norms" of society. 
   
• The third is, even if it is outside the acceptable norms, so what? What about the freedom of expression, where even unpopular ideas (including artistic ideas) should be free to be expressed?

On the first question, as a friend of mine remarked, it seems utterly incredible that well-known celebrities would pose with full frontal nudity. Is the MDA exaggerating the matter in order to justify their heavy-handedness?

At this time, I am unable to answer the question definitively, since I have not seen the book. However, as part of its launch, a photo exhibition was held in Hong Kong last month (Nov 2006). You can see 21 photographs taken by a visitor to the exhibition here.

Here are 6 of them:

Assuming they are representative of what's in the book, no one can argue that these are anything but "tasteful and artistically executed" despite the MDA's attempt to imply that they are not.

The most explicit may be this picture:

 
But even so, is it not artistic? Does the merest wisp of pubic hair, or the inclusion of the female nipple or male penis overrule all artistic sensibility?

Perhaps this is not the only full nude picture in the book; perhaps there are more [1]. In that case, the second question arises: Are artistic nudes outside the "acceptable norms of society" -- a new twist on the "Singapore is conservative" argument -- as stated by Madeei of the MDA? 

In this connection, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the book was launched in Hong Kong, which was also where the exhibition was held. How do we arrive at the view that Singapore is such a vastly more conservative place than Hong Kong, when the majority of both cities' populations are Chinese?

I am more inclined to think that rather than reflecting what the people can live with, the MDA's position in fact projects what the government is prepared to allow. As I have pointed out before, conservative, evangelical Christians are very numerous in government and many policies reflect their agenda rather than popular opinion, though they like to legitimise their views by claiming that they reflect the public's.

The third question is one of freedom of expression. Should expression be subject to majority approval? Must all permitted speech be confined to norms? So long as nobody is hurt by it, shouldn't such expression be allowed? As Gilbert Cheah pointed out in his letter, the book is sold at a hefty price, and anyway it is a limited edition imprint (I believe only 7000 copies). Common sense will tell you, bookshops will sell it inside a shrinkwrap or gift box to avoid damage, so no one is going to accidentally see the nudes.

Taken altogether, one should wonder whether the problem is really with the book or in the minds of our ministers and bureaucrats. Is allowing a few copies of the book to be sold something that will bring the sky falling down on Singapore? Or is the alarm only ringing inside terrified little minds?

© Yawning Bread