But what annoys me as much as the MDA's high-handedness is the flaccid position taken by Starhub. 'Today' newspaper reported thus:

StarHub expressed disappointment at the authority's decision to impose a fine but said it would follow broadcasting rules. "We understand the authority's concern, and will continue to work closely with our regional and international content partners to ensure that the local broadcasting guidelines are fully adhered to," said StarHub spokesperson Caitlin Fua.

-- 'Today', 9 April 2008, Starhub fined
$10,000 for 'lesbian kissing scene'

Why doesn't anybody fight? Why are Singaporeans and Singapore commercial enterprises so timid?

Some people will accept that it is the role of a media regulator to ensure that offensive images and points of view are not expressed. What these people never stop to ask is why "offence" is something that has to be avoided. Labelling something as "offensive" is just another way of irrationally imposing a taboo on challenging ideas, casting both the ideas and the communities associated with them as lepers. No discussion is allowed; their points of view obliterated. The very humanity of the subject persons is denied.

* * * * *

 
I thought it poignant that the new Mexican ambassador to Singapore described this little country as stunted. In a story in 'Today' newspaper (The Curse of Competency, by Chitra Rajaram), the ambassador, referring to his blindness, was quoted as saying, "Singapore still has some way to go before it relates to situations like this."

Mr Juan Jose Gomez-Camacho could not have analysed us better, the journalist wrote: The problem is that we do not want to or know how to deal with the exceptional or unknown. We tend to view everything as black and white while other mature societies can acknowledge and deal with various shades of grey.

And why is our national characteristic like that? Because we keep on avoiding through censorship rather than confront anything that makes us uncomfortable.

* * * * *

 
Four films were banned from this year's Singapore International Film Festival. Not only is this unjustifiable, news about the MDA's decision, like the fine levied on Starhub for the kiss, went around the world too, no doubt reinforcing Singapore's international image as a closed-minded, nanny state.

I saw reports of the bans carried in newspapers from Canada to Qatar. When I googled the names of the banned films to find out more about them, about half the search results referred to the MDA's bans in each case. This means that Singapore's image gets a whacking each time anyone tries to learn something about any of these films through the internet, even when the searcher does not start off enquiring about Singapore.

The people in the MDA -- the agency that is supposed to understand new media, among its other (ill-advised) responsibilities -- are behaving like the proverbial bull in a china shop.

What are those 4 films that are considered by the MDA to be so objectionable that we must close our minds to them? I had mentioned in an earlier article (Why the Films Act should be trashed) A Jihad for Love, a documentary exploring the place of gay Muslims in Islam. I provided a link to the YouTube trailer for the film, inviting readers to judge for themselves whether such a ban can be justified.

Now, let me mention the other 3 films -– all documentaries -- banned from the Festival.

There is Arabs and Terrorism, a film by Bassam Haddad. The film festival's blurb -- I want to archive it here before it is taken down after the film festival ends -- says this:

Researched in six different languages, 11 countries, 120 experts and politicians as well as hundreds of street interviews, this fast-paced documentary is determined to unearth what is said about Arabs and Terrorism. Tired of empty rhetoric about the fight against terrorism from Washington, D.C. neo-conservatives (and curious of many assertions made by the Bush administration), Arab-American filmmaker Bassam Haddad decided to seek the truth for himself, camera-in-hand, and thus sparks an impassioned dialogue between right-wing American policymakers and Middle Eastern political factions.

Haddad's method of documentary involves having interviews with political power-players on each side of the transcontinental (and trans-ideological) fence - American and Arab; recording each interview on his laptop; and having each interviewee view and respond to allegations made by the other side. The result is a documentary that dares to journey into waters seldom treaded by other filmmakers, by travelling right to the core of the ideological debate that lies behind the war on terror and investigating what the Arab people actually think, believe and desire -- independent of media bias.

Here is the trailer:

Does this film not strike you as an important intellectual enquiry about how we understand and apply the label "terrorist"? Yet,

Board of Film Censors chairperson Amy Chua said "Arabs and Terrorism" and another film, "David the Tolhildan", were "disallowed on account of their sympathetic portrayal of organisations deemed terrorist organisations by many countries.

-- Channel NewsAsia, 5 April 2008, S'pore censors
say 4 films banned from film festival

Reuters reported (and that partly explains why the news travelled around the world, "burnishing" Singapore's image):

"Films which portray terrorist organizations in a positive light by lending support and voice to justify their cause through violence are disallowed under the film classification guidelines," said Chua.

-- Reuters, 5 April 2008, Singapore censor
bans 4 films at film fest: report

Five years ago, David Rouiller ran away from his life in Switzerland; giving up the amenities of his western lifestyle to commit his life to joining the Kurdish freedom movement PKK. If this is not cause for surprise in itself, we learn that this man is the son of a former President of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.

Director Mano Khalil follows this man’s journey in his documentary as adjusts to his new surroundings and questions the motives for his actions. Is he escaping or confronting his fears and insecurities? Is he an adventurer, a dreamer, an idealist or a hero? Is his commitment visionary or illusory?

David the Tohildan provides an insightful and contemporary observation of the Kurdish freedom movement and the country’s political situation. Most importantly, the documentary also serves as a mirror for the audience to reflect our own outlook on oppression, respect, human dignity, freedom and violence.

Again, what's wrong with letting Singaporeans think about this subject? Why ban it?

Only the Japanese could aestheticise the tying up of women, known as kinbaku. Ryuichi Hiroki, whose roots lie in Japan’s "pink film" industry (namely erotic films that are released theatrically), explores the world of those who possess this fetish, namely the Japanese bondage masters, known as bakushi. Three of them, and three of their favourite models, are interviewed for this documentary.

Bakushi shows these practitioners in action, binding their whimpering models with elaborate knots before proceeding to the ritual chastisement for S&M specialist stage shows, photo shoots and videos. We also get a look at the history of S&M practices in Japan, and the visibility of rope-play spectacles in various media, including periodicals, films, and erotic manga. This film illuminates one of the more bizarre instances of the very Japanese attention to detail and taste for ceremony.

Ryuichi Hiroki began his filmmaking career in the "pink film" industry, making erotic films for theatrical release, and came into his own with Catch the Woman Out (Seigyaku-Onna wo Abaku) in 1982. He left this genre when the Sundance Company in Tokyo awarded him a scholarship, which led him to write his first feature film, Tokyo Trash Baby, in 2000 (shown in SIFF 2001). He is one of the pioneers in the use of digital video in Japan. His 2003 film Vibrator swept many prizes in Japan and internationally. He has also received the Grand Prix – Best Film in the 19th Singapore International Film Festival and awards in the 8th Barcelona Asian Film Festival for his 2005 film, It’s Only Talk (Yawarakai seikatsu).

Channel NewsAsia reported that in the opinion of MDA's Amy Chua, Bakushi "normalises unnatural fetishes and behaviour."

Indeed, the Japanese have sexual practices that sometimes seem weird to people from other cultures, but this can hardly be a reason to forbid ourselves from trying to understand the culture. What lies beneath the MDA's decision is a fear that people may learn to appreciate something from a different world, and Singapore society as we know it would change.

However, such a stance is anti everything that Singapore stands for and made this place a success -- openness and constant change. The MDA seems to think its remit to stop Singaporeans from learning anything from the outside world in the fear that we may evolve as a people and culture.

That cannot be healthy for us. It cannot be coherent with our best interests. It completely demeans us to think that we're all "monkey see, monkey do" -- that as soon as we're exposed to something new, we will adopt it unthinkingly. Surely we can think for ourselves, or at least learn to after a while. And surely, there are plenty of examples where Singaporeans have benefitted from other cultural imports -- sushi, for example. To some people it may be gross and uncivilised to eat uncooked food. To others, it has added variety and pleasure to our culinary scene....

Alas, I don't think such a scene can be found anywhere in Singapore. Not yet. 

© Yawning Bread