self-censorship - singapore's shame
'to promote film as an artistic medium. to provide the opportunity to audiences to view films not otherwise released commercially. to create awareness of the finer points of filmmaking through seminars and workshops by overseas professionals, to pave the way for a Singapore film industry and to provide an international showcase for Asian Cinema'
that, was what the annual singapore international film festival (SIFF) promised...on its website at least.
a singaporean film maker, Martyn See was pressured to remove his documentary on opposition leader, dr chee soon juan entitled 'Singapore Rebel' from the ongoing SIFF after being warned of possible criminal charges. a full chronicle of the chain of events that led to his withdrawal could be found on his blog.
under the 1998 amendment to the Film Act (an attempt widely believed to be prompted by an attempt by the SDP to release a party videotape to the public), any person who imports, makes, reproduces, distributes or exhibitis a 'party political film' could be fined up to $100,000 or jailed for up to two years. and with the usual ambiguity that typicalises singaporean media law, 'party political films' are defined in the Act to include any motion picture 'which is made by any person and directed towards any political ends in singapore'. the controversial amendment was passed with strong criticisms and with reservations from PAP MPs, NMPs, and opposition MPs alike. while the amendment was perceived by many to be yet another move to stifle politcal opposition towards the government, the Act appears to limit and stifle creative efforts in the arts scene more than it does to opposition politicians (not that it will make a difference since they are already inherently marginalised anyway, with or without the film act given the long list of other legislations such as internet regulation over politic websites, and politcal donations that disfavours them disproportionately). Martyn See was one such casualty, an artist caught in a political crossfire.
the ostensible reason for the amendment was that videos were an undesirable medium for political discourse in that it tended to promote image over substance. it is to be fair, not without justification as seen in the debacle and outrage over the 'Special Report' satirical VCD in circulation during the last taiwanese presidential elections. yet it question the neccessity of a blanket ban on any movies vaguely deemed political since there are already libel and slander laws (which our PAP government certainly uses to great effect)in place to take care of any baseless accusations or ill-founded political mudslinging. so why the need to incur a social cost at the expense of stifling our budding film-makers? isn't the promotion of local arts (among other realpolitik concerns) on the government's agenda as well?
the greater overaching concerns beyond that of politcal discourse for such vaguely defined legislations is the self-censoring culture it breeds in our local artists or even audience. the ambiguous nature of what is or isn't acceptable to the government or OB markers (which to my knowledge is just one of those catchy fanciful terms like 'heartlander' which were never empirically defined) gives rise to what is considered 'drifnet laws' - legislations that allow the government to trawl a whole ocean of eventualities, and throw back whatever it was not interested in. in the face of the possiblity of punity, and given an ill-understanding of what is or isn't acceptable (given the ambiguity), artists or bureaucrats on the censorship board are more prone to erring on the safe side, and actively choosing to prevent the publicising of certain controversial art works out of fear ofpersecution prosecution - even if what they chose to censor turns out to be what the government is uninterested in out of the whole 'ocean of eventualities'.
the singapore board of film censors (or censorship board, abbrieviated as CB as i would like to call it) has a greater role beyond that of a nanny shielding the eyelids of we the young, innocent, virginal impressionable singaporeans. the CB has a 'maternal' role in determining the social acceptability for various forms of mainstream or even fringe arts. it takes one brave censor who dare to test the boundaries of social acceptability and take that risk in passing a controversial artwork before society and progress to a further level of artistic progression. if censors (films or otherwise) chose to seek the easy way out, erring on the safe side, the world would probably be devoid of classics like lady chatterly's lover, and perhaps a whole subsequent generation of brilliant but controversial films like trainspotting which rode on that very precedent platform. sadly, our singaporean CB chose the easy way out. i'm not too sure if the CB is a governmental, quasi-governmental or fully independent. but from what i gathered from the correspondenc on martyn see's blog, the MHA was never involved but rather the decision was made by the CB itself.it is indeed ironic, and lamentably that the while controversial foreign films are passed, local film-makers are denied a platform in what is designed to be a show case of the singapore cinema. shame on you, CB. and to think our budding film-makers are receiving accolates around the world, but their homeland where they aren't even allowed to showcase their works, not even because of governmental clampdown, but simply out of bureaucratic cowardice of the CB. do we have to deny an entire generation of martyn sees or royston tans before the CB sees the light beyond the tunnel (that was a lousy pun)? singapore already has a bad reputation in terms of press freedom having being ranked 147th in the 2004 world press freedom ranking - barely 3 notches ahead of the military regime in pakistan, the last thing we need is a stiffling, prudish and dogmatic arts scene to match that notoriety.
dear blogders, if you're as peeved as i am, show your outrage to our singaporean CB (an abbreviation which somehow shares the same initials as the hokkien name of a certain part of the female anatomy). inspired by the 'i'm-too-sexy-for-my-blog' movement, why not let's have a 'dun-let-the-CB-cover-my-eyes' movement to show solidarity for local film-maker. well, to be realistic, it's not like the singapore board of film censors (CB) would give a hoot about that, but at least we could express some sort of collective outcry towards this bureaucratic cowardice.
dun let the CB cover my eyes!
simply take a photograph of yourself, form an oval shape using ur middle and fore-finger on one hand, and point a middle finger at the oval while giving an expression of disapproval. alternatively, u might wanna pinch your nose while holding up the oval to indicate the putrid nature of the cowardice and uptightness of our CB in singapore. then post it on your blog.
for the roystons and martyns out there.
that, was what the annual singapore international film festival (SIFF) promised...on its website at least.
a singaporean film maker, Martyn See was pressured to remove his documentary on opposition leader, dr chee soon juan entitled 'Singapore Rebel' from the ongoing SIFF after being warned of possible criminal charges. a full chronicle of the chain of events that led to his withdrawal could be found on his blog.
under the 1998 amendment to the Film Act (an attempt widely believed to be prompted by an attempt by the SDP to release a party videotape to the public), any person who imports, makes, reproduces, distributes or exhibitis a 'party political film' could be fined up to $100,000 or jailed for up to two years. and with the usual ambiguity that typicalises singaporean media law, 'party political films' are defined in the Act to include any motion picture 'which is made by any person and directed towards any political ends in singapore'. the controversial amendment was passed with strong criticisms and with reservations from PAP MPs, NMPs, and opposition MPs alike. while the amendment was perceived by many to be yet another move to stifle politcal opposition towards the government, the Act appears to limit and stifle creative efforts in the arts scene more than it does to opposition politicians (not that it will make a difference since they are already inherently marginalised anyway, with or without the film act given the long list of other legislations such as internet regulation over politic websites, and politcal donations that disfavours them disproportionately). Martyn See was one such casualty, an artist caught in a political crossfire.
the ostensible reason for the amendment was that videos were an undesirable medium for political discourse in that it tended to promote image over substance. it is to be fair, not without justification as seen in the debacle and outrage over the 'Special Report' satirical VCD in circulation during the last taiwanese presidential elections. yet it question the neccessity of a blanket ban on any movies vaguely deemed political since there are already libel and slander laws (which our PAP government certainly uses to great effect)in place to take care of any baseless accusations or ill-founded political mudslinging. so why the need to incur a social cost at the expense of stifling our budding film-makers? isn't the promotion of local arts (among other realpolitik concerns) on the government's agenda as well?
the greater overaching concerns beyond that of politcal discourse for such vaguely defined legislations is the self-censoring culture it breeds in our local artists or even audience. the ambiguous nature of what is or isn't acceptable to the government or OB markers (which to my knowledge is just one of those catchy fanciful terms like 'heartlander' which were never empirically defined) gives rise to what is considered 'drifnet laws' - legislations that allow the government to trawl a whole ocean of eventualities, and throw back whatever it was not interested in. in the face of the possiblity of punity, and given an ill-understanding of what is or isn't acceptable (given the ambiguity), artists or bureaucrats on the censorship board are more prone to erring on the safe side, and actively choosing to prevent the publicising of certain controversial art works out of fear of
the singapore board of film censors (or censorship board, abbrieviated as CB as i would like to call it) has a greater role beyond that of a nanny shielding the eyelids of we the young, innocent, virginal impressionable singaporeans. the CB has a 'maternal' role in determining the social acceptability for various forms of mainstream or even fringe arts. it takes one brave censor who dare to test the boundaries of social acceptability and take that risk in passing a controversial artwork before society and progress to a further level of artistic progression. if censors (films or otherwise) chose to seek the easy way out, erring on the safe side, the world would probably be devoid of classics like lady chatterly's lover, and perhaps a whole subsequent generation of brilliant but controversial films like trainspotting which rode on that very precedent platform. sadly, our singaporean CB chose the easy way out. i'm not too sure if the CB is a governmental, quasi-governmental or fully independent. but from what i gathered from the correspondenc on martyn see's blog, the MHA was never involved but rather the decision was made by the CB itself.it is indeed ironic, and lamentably that the while controversial foreign films are passed, local film-makers are denied a platform in what is designed to be a show case of the singapore cinema. shame on you, CB. and to think our budding film-makers are receiving accolates around the world, but their homeland where they aren't even allowed to showcase their works, not even because of governmental clampdown, but simply out of bureaucratic cowardice of the CB. do we have to deny an entire generation of martyn sees or royston tans before the CB sees the light beyond the tunnel (that was a lousy pun)? singapore already has a bad reputation in terms of press freedom having being ranked 147th in the 2004 world press freedom ranking - barely 3 notches ahead of the military regime in pakistan, the last thing we need is a stiffling, prudish and dogmatic arts scene to match that notoriety.
dear blogders, if you're as peeved as i am, show your outrage to our singaporean CB (an abbreviation which somehow shares the same initials as the hokkien name of a certain part of the female anatomy). inspired by the 'i'm-too-sexy-for-my-blog' movement, why not let's have a 'dun-let-the-CB-cover-my-eyes' movement to show solidarity for local film-maker. well, to be realistic, it's not like the singapore board of film censors (CB) would give a hoot about that, but at least we could express some sort of collective outcry towards this bureaucratic cowardice.
dun let the CB cover my eyes!
simply take a photograph of yourself, form an oval shape using ur middle and fore-finger on one hand, and point a middle finger at the oval while giving an expression of disapproval. alternatively, u might wanna pinch your nose while holding up the oval to indicate the putrid nature of the cowardice and uptightness of our CB in singapore. then post it on your blog.
for the roystons and martyns out there.
1 Comments:
The argument is compelling, but the gesture totally ruins it. take it down, if not for nothing but your own credibility.
Post a Comment
<< Home