[back]

This document is a position paper by the undersigned of arts community for submission to the Censorship Review Committee. It lays out our position on censorship and regulation, and recommends that the Committee adopts the regulatory model and principles described here.The arts community is a 'client' of the censorship rules, just like the Government and the public. Indeed, it is the reason those rules exist: No artists, no art, no need for arts censorship. That's why we believe it is important to hear our views as practitioners. The arts community is also taking the Government at its word. Minister David Lim has said the Committee should examine first principles and examine new models of censorship and regulation. We are taking on the call to provide possible solutions by proposing a model and the principles that will serve the community well in the long term. We believe that the existing censorship rules fall far short of that which Singapore deserves. They are against the fundamental principles of a modern democracy in a nation-state with an educated, cosmopolitan population. And if the current review brings about merely a quantitative advance in the relaxation of censorship, it would not go far enough. What is needed is a system that works for the long haul. We believe that the dream of making Singapore into a Renaissance City can only come from an environment where censorship is replaced with regulation by other means because to create art - and people - requires a free environment to flourish. The current censorship rules, or any set of rules which is overly restrictive, would undermine the Renaissance City goal. We believe that the new rules are also consistent with our 'Asian values' and is not much different from developed cities and countries like Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan.

In any case, the Internet has made many of the rules irrelevant because it allows almost unrestricted access to all materials. The present rules only serves to drive demand of these materials out of the open.

(I) THE PRINCIPLES

We that the following principles have to observed in any regulatory system:

1) Diversity and tolerance
The rules should acknowledge the diversity of today's Singapore and in fact allow for the greatest possible expression of that diversity. This requires a climate of 'reciprocal tolerance', which means (a) an acceptance of other people's rights to express and receive certain ideas and actions; and (b) accepting that other people have the right not to be exposed against their will to one's expression of ideas and actions. Tolerance of expression of ideas or actions does not mean that one agrees with approve these ideas, but that one acknowledges that other people have the right to their own space to make these expression possible.

2) Regulation by rating, zoning and belting
Diversity requires tolerance. Tolerance enables choice, choice to and choice not to. That exercise of choice can be best provided for by a system that is based on some kind of limited restriction of access and exposure to allegedly 'harmful' or 'dangerous' material rather than a system that relies on crude blanket bans over such material. Thus regulation in the sense of bans - which we define as "censorship" - should be eliminated except in extremely rare cases where freedom of expression and choice poses a clear and present danger - as opposed to an existing but slim possibility - to public order or national security. Instead, what should be put in place is a regulatory system - which bans almost nothing but allows everything, and does so by regulating distribution and access. The regulatory model should be based on a system of rating, zoning and belting. Rating (like the present films rating system) classifies works (films, books, plays, magazines, etc) according to their content and imposes age limits based on it. Under the ratings system, no work is banned outright. Zoning classifies geographical areas where works of certain ratings are allowed or disallowed. We believe that zoned areas where content which do not satisfy the rating for general audience can be restricted to city areas such as Waterloo Street, Kerbau Road, Chinatown, North Bridge Road, River Valley Road. Belting classifies time periods (on television or radio, say) or types of media (such as newspapers or more restricted circulation papers) according to reach, imposing stricter limits on periods and media with greater reach and according to the ratings. The rating system should be consistent in their application and should be clearly defined.The RZB system allows for positive freedoms - freedom of expression and choice to take part in or consume. It also allows for negative freedoms - freedom from by imposing strict rules not only on the availability of works but even more strict rules on advertising and publicity for these works.


3) Advertising and publicity
Advertising and other publicity materials often have wider reach then the works themselves. Also, works which are displayed with other works - such as books, magazines, CDs and videos, are their own advertising and publicity, and should thus be regulated by general rules on advertising and publicity. Strict regulation should be put in place for the way in which works are advertised or displayed and where they are advertised or displayed. The principle of 'brown bagging' should be applied: Works or advertising about works which fail the general rating test should be brown bagged: restricted to certain zones of the city, restricted to certain areas within a bookshop, video shop or whatever retail and other spaces which the public would go to to purchase general-rated material; be appropriate wrapped so that material on the cover would be be inadvertently seen. This protects those who do not wish to come across such material.

4) Avenues of recourse and complaint
That exercise of freedom of expression and choice causes unhappiness, either with the artist, the organisational entities which make the art possible, the consumers, or the authorities, is not a sufficient indication of such danger. Indeed it is seldom is. However, in the very rare cases that people or organisations threaten or intend to express their unhappiness by disrupting the peace, then the relevant laws should be brought to bear against them, rather than proscribing those who they accuse of such and such. In recent years, public discourse about race, religion and a whole host of 'sensitive' issues has shown that Singaporeans approach discussion in even the most heated issues in a rational way, or at least, in a non-violent manner. We believe that this is because of the maturity of the audience brought about by education and economic and social progress. The regulations rules should take that as a starting point, and stop assuming that Singaporeans are unable to handle conflict through debate and argument. Disagreements will not always disappear with discussion. It will existalways exist because it is a consequence of diversity. Indeed debate may exacerbate differences, but debate is the only way to mediate these differences. Burying difference but not allowing expression of ideas - unless they intentionally incite violence and hatred between communities - is not the alternative for a mature population. The party aggrieved by an artist or arts group should not seek to get the authorities to ban the work, but has at its disposal the right or reply through the mass media or its own publications or activities.


5) Engagement with the audience
The censorship system must take into account that some art forms (a) do not have set texts and unfold in reaction to the audience, and (b) bring down traditional barriers between artist/work and audience, indeed sometimes redefines the meaning of the 'audience'. Instances of such works are performance art, forum theatre and street or site-specific work which require interaction with the audience, including a public that may sometimes be unaware that they are part of the 'audience'. What this usually means is that there is some amount of unpredictability in the work. But this is not sufficient reason to proscribe the work. The test again is whether there is a clear and present danger of a threat to public order or national security.


6) Pre- versus post-censorship
We believe that the system of regulation should be based on post-censorship rather than pre-censorship, except for content with very wide reach. For example film and television. This means doing away with a licensing system for plays, visual arts events, concerts and other performances. Instead of having to ask for permission to put out these works. Artists need only inform the authorities of their intention to do so.


7) Minors protection
Minors must be protected. The way to protect them should not be by putting a blanket ban on materials not suitable for their eyes but to restrict their access to these material by imposing age limits, as in the current practice for alcohol or plays and movies. The rating, zoning and belting model ensures the protection of minors with proper policing. Stricter regulations should be placed on rating for violence, in particular for film and television.

(II) SPECIFIC FORMS, CONTENT AND OTHER ISSUES

1) Plays
Plays should not be banned, and there should be no alterations to the script or performance as long as they do not contravene the laws of the land. Non-general rated plays can only be performed in the designated zoned areas in the city. They should be rated by the groups according to the common set of rating system. If there are complaints, the Government may wish to impose a rating on the play, but it must lay out its case according to the rating system. Plays which are rated not for general public viewing can only be staged in the zone areas. The proscriptions on Forum Theatre should be lifted. Interactive works should be allowed as long as they satisfy general public safety and public order concerns based on the clear and present danger rule.

2) Films
The same rules for plays should apply.

3) Books
Lift bans on books with sexual or political content. Require booksellers to restrict the sales to adults and display of these books.

4) Magazines
Lift bans on magazines such as Cosmopolitan, Playboy etc.

5) Television and cable
Free-to-air stations should be belted and programmes rated. Cable television should be regulated by allowing for access codes to imposed.

6) Visual arts
No painting should be banned. Shows may be rated. The current proscription on performance art should be lifted.

7) Music
Lift bans on all songs unless they are obviously racist, such as Nazi material. Impose ratings on songs or albums with drug, sexual or other adult content. Restrict sales of such material only to adults. Allow sales of these material only in shops in the zone areas in the city. Brown bag or zone these material in a shop.

8) Video
Impose ratings on video, VCDs and DVDs. Restrict sales of non-general-rated material to adults. Shops with these materials can only operate within the city zone, similar to the zones for other media such as plays and film. Within a shop apply brown-bagging and zoning rules.

9) Politics
Lift the bans on political material, including on movies and documentary (as defined under the Films Act). Allow materials currently banned because of 'diplomatic sensitivities' in foreign relations. Call for the Films Act to be amended.

10) Race and religion
Allow currently-banned materials on race and religion, applying the clear and present danger rule. Apply a rating to works if necessary.

11) Homosexuality and other sexual content
Allow currently-banned material. Impose a rating if necessary.

12) Artistic merit
Remove rating by artistic merit. All materials should be allowed under the rating system, whether there is perceived artistic merit or not.

(III) CASE STUDIES:

  1. Talaq. There should not have been a ban. The group which took offence should have found ways to exercise their right of reply by writing to the press or other means.
  2. Causeway (Arts Festival 2002). The NAC should not have asked lines to be cut from the play.
  3. Kinda Hot (by the company Spell #7) A performance designed as a guidedtour around Little India, taking small groups onto the street, talking to them and leading them from one location to another. There was no clear and present danger to public order, so the play should have been allowed.
  4. Lanyu (movie). Banned for general theatrical release because the main theme is homosexuality. Should be allowed under a rating.
  5. Zoolander (Movie). Banned because it one of the characters is the Malaysian Prime Minister. Should be allowed.
  6. J B Jeyaretnam documentary (by Ngee Ann Poly staff). Banned under the Films Act. Should be allowed after revising of Films Act.
  7. Sex and the city. Allowed on access-restricted cable or on free-to-air TV in a late-our time belt.



The signing of the no censorship proposal ended on 20 October 2002, 23:59hrs. For all of you who signed, thank you for the overwhelming support. You will be emailed soon on the update and results of the handing over of the proposal. If you need to get in touch with us, please feel free to drop us an email at tworks@singnet.com.sg


 

[back to top]