Film censorship
'Do what minister mentor says'
Referring to Kuan Yew's Time interview, media commentator calls for change in censorship laws. Littlespeck.
Dec 10, 2005

TIME: A documentary film was made locally about a Singapore opposition politician, and it was banned.
LEE: Well, if you had asked me, I would have said, to hell with it. But the censor, the enforcer, he will continue until he is told the law has changed. And it will change...

The exchange prompted media analyst Dharmendra Yadav to write this letter (excerpts) to Dr Tan Chin Nam, Chairman, Media Development Authority.
--

I hope the Media Development Authority will take the lead from our founding father. It is time for the law to be changed. I believe calls to review this legislation have been made quite some time ago - based on my limited reading, as far back as May 2005.

But, as far as I have read, there has been no response to such proposals from the MDA. I too proposed a review in October 2005:

QUOTE
Some, like me, feel a review of the Films Act is in order. For example, its process of assessment, investigation, enforcement and appeal can be codified separately.

Decisions should preferably be made by an independent body of people whose deliberations should be public and free from any perceived political pressure from the dominant party or the opposition parties. There should be opportunities for appeal and for judicial review.

Yet even with such codification, any decision can be disputed as subjective, since it is based on interpretation. So, we need to ask if banning such party political films is the best way forward in the first place.

These films can be easily screened outside Singapore, and controversy is often the best crowd-drawer.

Also, film bans are increasingly irrelevant in this age of broadband Internet access, which has made it possible to download films from websites that are hosted overseas, such as Martyn See's documentary on Singapore Democratic Party secretary-general Chee Soon Juan, Singapore Rebel.

Even if such websites are blocked - as they are in China - there are Internet entrepreneurs who will simply mirror the website and provide regulators like MDA with a bigger problem to manage.

A better solution may be not to ban these films but to require them to include warnings or declarations, for instance.

If the film is deemed partisan, MDA, together with the Singapore Film Commission, can appoint another film-maker to introduce brief footage that will make it less partisan.

For example, if the film makes fun of film censors, get a quick view from film censors, or request an academic to provide a brief analysis.

Such clips can be screened at the end of the film to balance audience perspective, as a condition for the film being passed for screening in Singapore.

Conditions can also be imposed on where and how party political films can be screened. For example, like R21 (restricted) films, such films could be screened in specified cinemas only.

Tickets could be subject to a minimum price of $20 - half of which could be donated to the film commission and the National Arts Council.
UNQUOTE

Many of our founding fathers proactively went out of their way to find out the pulse of our society.

The MDA can certainly learn from this and be more proactive in reviewing our media laws; it is in the interest of Singapore for the MDA to do so.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav