What do we have to cut to get an R21 rating? We asked the woman at the Media Development Authority (MDA), Orwellian-speak for Singapore's department of thought control and media censorship.

She went to the back room and came out with a print-out indicating the parts of the film the censors objected to, clearly notated in minutes and seconds. There were three places in the feature-length film so indicated.

My friend asked: So, if we cut out these parts, we can submit again? 

Yes, she said.

Fine, then, we'll do that. But where's the film?

You can't have it, she said. It's been rejected, so we're keeping it.

Of course, I flew into a near-rage. The film-maker, in allowing us to screen the film in Singapore, had wanted us to provide an undertaking that the film would be returned in good condition, or we'd be liable for a few thousand euros. In the end, we negotiated for a DVD instead, since People Like Us did not have anything like a few thousand euros in the bank. No bond was necessary for a DVD. Luckily, we had decided as we did. Imagine if we had put up the bond, imported the movie in film version and the MDA had impounded the film.

This is not your property, I told the MDA officer. We passed it to you in good faith for classification purposes and not for you to retain. What lawful right have you to do so? Have you no respect for other people's property?

She meekly handed us back the DVD.

* * * * *

 
The movie in question was Devotee, by Remi Lange, a film that has received much critical acclaim and which we wanted to screen for Indignation, Singapore's LGBT pride festival.

* * * * *

 
Instead of asking the film to be cut in France, the original country, and then having to courier the edited version back here -- it would take too long and cost too much -- we asked a filmmaker in Singapore to make the necessary edits for us.

We asked her to insert a still frame at each point where she made a cut, as in the example on the left. We wanted our audience to know that what they were seeing was not the entire original but a mutilated version of it. We wanted them to know exactly where the cuts were made and how much. We believed it was important in terms of our transparency and accountability to our audience.

This second version was resubmitted a few days later to the MDA.

When my friend went back to collect it -– I was too busy to go with him -– the MDA told him it was rejected too. The censors said the still frames were not allowed. And this time, they insisted on retaining the copy.

Thankfully, we had made safety copies by then.

(I think the next time I go deal with the MDA, I shall have to bring a lawyer with me.)

Time was short, we didn't want to argue. We edited the film once more to remove the still frames and sent it in again. Finally we got an R21 rating, and it was screened to a full house at the Arts House cinema on 14 August 2009.

* * * * *

 
Nonetheless, a number of serious questions arise and should be posed to the minister responsible.

The first, of course, is what right the MDA has to seize films that they refuse to classify. Is there such a law? Is it merely stupid administrative policy, if so, why didn't they inform me of this possible outcome before I handed over the film for classification?

The second is this: On what basis can they say that the still frame with only text is also not allowed? Where in the censorship guidelines does it say certain kinds of text are not allowed?

Frankly, that action can be reduced to a simple point: The censors want to be able to act in secret. They do not want film viewers to know what scenes or how many minutes have been cut from a film. These public servants do not wish to be transparent and accountable to the public.

In researching for this essay, I tried to locate the policy guidelines by which the film censors operate. Guess what -– none can be seen on MDA's website. A google search yielded nothing either. It's some kind of secret. That being the case, maybe I am wrong, maybe there is in fact an operational policy that says something to this effect: Any part of a film that tells audiences that the MDA has wielded the scissors is censorable speech. It is a serious threat to morality, mass psychology, social stability and national security.

In the absence of any useful information on the MDA's website, I checked the Recommendations by the Censorship Review Committee 2002. These recommendations were produced in 2003 and can be seen here. My recollection is that almost all of them were accepted by the government and implemented soon after.

In Chapter 5, it discussed Content Standards. Section 2 of this chapter listed out the types of speech that should be banned.

5.2 CONTENT DISALLOWED

5.2.1 It is difficult to enforce content guidelines on mediums such as the Internet. Nevertheless, the following guidelines for content standards should still be applicable to all mediums: a. Should not undermine public order and the nation’s security. b. Should not denigrate race and religion. c. Should not erode the core moral values of society, through content such as pornography, deviant sexual practices, sexual violence, child pornography and bestiality, etc.

Recommendation: Continue to disallow content that undermines public order and the nation’s security, denigrates race and religion or erodes moral values through pornography, deviant sexual practices, sexual violence, child pornography, bestiality, etc.

After listing what should be banned, it discussed other areas where some degree of control or classification would be necessary. They are:

5.3 Race and religion

5.4 Moral values

5.5 Homosexuality

5.6 Violence

5.7 Sexual content and nudity

5.8 Coarse language

5.9 Chinese dialects

You will notice that still frames with text is not listed as a problematic issue that should be subject to control.

I can only conclude that the MDA is very likely abusing its power, acting unlawfully and unethically (trying to hide its own actions from public scrutiny).

* * * * *

 
While we're on this subject, readers might want to revisit what the Censorship Review Committee said in Section 5.5 Homosexuality:

5.5 HOMOSEXUALITY

5.5.1 Currently, MDA takes a cautious approach towards homosexual content, even though the CRC 1992 allowed it, if not promotional in nature. Publications and arts entertainment, unlike films, are given greater leeway in dealing with homosexual issues as their impact is either on individuals or on smaller audience sizes. Films dealing with homosexual themes and scenes in a non-exploitative or non-promotional manner are allowed only at the Singapore International Film Festival (SIFF) but not for commercial release.

5.5.2 Some sectors, especially arts groups, have called for greater space for content on homosexuality, especially in films. For example, they have requested for the same treatment given to SIFF to be given for commercial screening, with Lan Yu being the most notable example.

5.5.3 Censorship surveys have shown that half the respondents did not object to allowing access to non-exploitative content dealing with homosexuality. Similar sentiment was also expressed by most participants at this CRC’s focus group discussions. Nevertheless, it is still a sensitive subject in our society. Some segments hold the view that allowing content on homosexuality in the public domain will be taken as an endorsement by the authorities. However, as a matter of principle, a decision made by the authorities to allow depiction of certain lifestyles or values under content guidelines should not mean official endorsement for the content. Consumers should exercise their judgement and take responsibility for their choice. There is a need for public education on this matter. In the final analysis, this CRC recommends that content with homosexual themes or scenes should be given greater leeway for adults, so long as they are not exploitative. In examining the issue, MDA should give greater consideration to factors like artistic merit of a content and whether a scene is relevant to the context.

Recommendations: Take a more flexible and contextual approach when dealing with homosexual themes and scenes in content. Allow greater leeway for adults, through suitable channels, to access such content provided it is not exploitative. .

What about freedom of speech? I noted in one of the thought bubbles. Other concerns I have are over the use of the words "exploitative" and "promotional". What on earth do these words mean? What is the difference between "exploitative" and "pornographic?" Isn't it good enough that we have a rule on pornographic content without clouding the issue (and making a distinction between homosexual pornographic and heterosexual pornographic) by throwing in the word "exploitative"?

What does "promotional" mean? In practice, it seems to be used in the sense of promoting the idea that gay people are normal, which scientifically speaking, they are. Only religious nuts insist otherwise against all evidence. By such a guideline, any film that depicts a gay person or couple as happy, loving and well-adjusted and that would likely make people think positively of gay people would either be censored or rated strictly. The result of such bias is that only negative portrayals of gay people are broadly allowed in Singapore's mass media. Gay people must be shown as unhappy, sick or criminal. This is nothing less than prejudicial defamation of entire class of people.

* * * * *

 
Then, in scanning the rest of the Censorship Review Committee's recommendations, I spotted this section in Chapter 7.

7.5 SPECIFIC AND TRANSPARENT CONTENT GUIDELINES

7.5.1 Industry players have called on MDA to provide greater transparency in censorship matters and more specific content guidelines so as to promote industry joint regulation. This CRC recommends that a set of broadly-framed content guidelines should be provided to allow room for modification for greater diversity and creativity. But MDA should explain its censorship decisions and make them easily available to industry players, as part of its public education effort.

Recommendation: To promote joint regulation with industry players, MDA should provide broadly-framed content guidelines to industry players, explain censorship decisions clearly and make them readily available to industry players.

Now, try searching the MDA website for guidelines. Try inserting still frames in films to show where and why cuts have been made. Try getting your film -- your lawful property -- back after they refuse to classify it.

© Yawning Bread