Background
Singapore’s film industry started in the 1930s, a detailed inspection of the country’s films is telling, for its content politicizes the indelible history of Singapore cinema, and by extension , of modern Singapore : the first few decades were dominated by Malay-language films of the 50s and 60s, and from the 70s to the present, Singapore was represented by Chinese-language films . The category of ‘Singaporean’ is being contested along racial lines, because sovereignty issues percolating from racial politics between warring Chinese and Malay interests had influenced the formation of Independent Singapore, consequently re-interpreting among other things, the racial and national identity of its cinema : from a Malay- dominated one prior to and during Singapore’s merger with Malaysia in 1963, to an increasingly Chinese-dominated one after Singapore declared independence in 1965. At the same time, the film industry largely declined as Singapore wanted the Media to become a nation-building tool.
Before 1991, films were either approved for released or banned entirely. In order to be shown, they were edited to suit the ‘system’. Things changed dramatically on 1st July 1991 when film classification was introduced. There were three classification ratings : G (General), PG (Parental Guidance) and R18 (Restricted to 18 years and above).The introduction of R18 was meant to provide more choice for adults. A series of modifications to the classification system took place after 1991. In 1993, a new rating, NC16 (No Children under 16), was introduced to protect children from viewing films thematically unsuitable for them and to bridge the gap between PG and R21.
Media Development Authority (MDA)
The Media Development Authority (MDA) was formed on 1 January 2003 by the merger of Singapore Broadcasting Authority, the Films and Publications Department and the Singapore Film Commission, to champion the development of a vibrant media sector in Singapore: one that nurtures homegrown media enterprises and attracts direct foreign investment for economic growth, new jobs and greater economic dynamism.
Encouraging Co-regulation
With the proliferation of media content and delivery platforms, co-regulation with the industry is important. The industry is encouraged to be socially responsible and to take adequate steps to ensure that content meets with community standards. This partnership with the industry enables MDA to be responsive to both public and industry needs.
How Co-regulation Works
Co-regulation is currently practised for media platforms like radio and TV (both free-to-air and subscription broadcasters), where MDA does not pre-censor content but issues content codes and guidelines for content providers' compliance. The codes and guidelines are drafted in consultation with the industry as well as public advisory committees, to ensure that they are in step with community standards.
In the areas of film classification, the Boards of Film Censors (BFC) provides a platform for companies to co-regulate in content declaration, whereby companies can highlight any contentious elements to the BFC. Co-regulation is also practised by companies when declaring content exemption from classification based on a set of guidelines issued by the Board. Self-regulation is practised by the industry whereby companies take full ownership over marketing and publicity materials based on a set of guidelines issued by the BFC.
In March 2004, MDA revised the film classification system and included an M18 ( Mature 18) category to provide more choices for young adults.
There are a total of 5 classification :
G – ‘General’, entertainment that is suitable for the whole family.
PG – ‘Parental Guidance’, suitable for most, but not all ages. Parents should guide their young as some scenes may be disturbing to children.
NC16 – ‘No Children Under 16’ Not appropriate for those below 16 years of age, as the film may contain more explicit scenes.
M18 – ‘Mature 18’, for viewers aged 18 and above, these films may contain mature themes which are more suitable for young adult.
R21 – ‘Restricted 21’, these films may contain adult issues, themse and more explicit scenes.
In the same year, they introduced ‘Consumer Advice’ to provide information on the content of the films. This would enable the public to make more informed film-viewing decisions. Consumer advice are descriptors that alert consumers to potentially sensitive content or contentious elements that may be found in the film.
Board of Film Censors
Film Classification Guidelines (2010)
When making a classification decision for a film, the BFC takes careful consideration of the film’s content as well as all other relevant factors and concerns. These guidelines reflect the social norms and values of Singapore’s multi-racial society. The aim of classification is to protect the young while providing more choice for adults. This is done by providing a comprehensive rating system with consumer advice.
In general, the Board’s classification decisions are guided by the following considerations :
- Generally accepted social mores.
- Films screened must be sensitive to the standards of morality, decency and propriety acceptable to the general public.
- Need to protect young
- For the lower ratings, particular attention will be paid to content that may be unsuitable for the young
- Racial/religious harmony
- As Singapore is a multi-racial and multi –religious society, films that denigrate any racial or religious group, or create misunderstanding or disharmony amongst the races are not allowed for all ratings.
- National interest
- Films deemed to undermine public order, national security and stability will be disallowed for all ratings.
- Treatment of them, content and context
- How a film, is classified depends on its theme or message, presentation or content, and the context in which scenes are presented.
- Evaluations of impact
- The impact of a film or a scene will be evaluated based on the presentation duration,frequency, degree of visual and audio details, and their cumulative effect.
Also when classifying films, due consideration will be given to the artistic, educational or literary merit of the film.
Content
This part of the guidelines spells out content concerns that are applied in different degrees at all classification levels. The seven major content concerns are:
1. Theme
- The acceptability of a theme is determined by its suitability and treatment i.e. the way it is presented and the context in which scenes are presented. Suitability and treatment of a theme is especially important in the lower classification levels. Films dealing with mature content (e.g. drug use, prostitution or homosexuality) would generally be classified as NC16, M18 or R21.
2. Violence
- The depiction of violence may frighten, unnerve, unsettle or invite imitation, especially from children. Therefore, only mild portrayals that are relevant to the plot may be allowed in films meant for children. For the higher classifications, a stronger depiction of violence is permitted if it is justified by context.
- The concerns in violence are:
· Depiction of graphic/gratuitous violence
· Normalising the use of violence as a solution to resolve problems;
· Depiction of violent gangster behaviour (e.g. self mutilation rites);
· Emphasis on violent techniques/acts (e.g. methods of torture, gang- fights, combat techniques);
· Encouraging aggressive and sadistic attitudes towards infliction of pain and violence;
· Explicit and prolonged sexual violence or erotic portrayal of sexual assault /coercion.
3. Nudity
- Nudity is not allowed in G category films. Rear and side nudity is allowed in PG films if it is discreet, justified by context and not meant to titillate. Full frontal nudity may be allowed in the upper categories if it is justified by context and without gratuitous close-ups.
4. Sex
- The level of sexual activity allowed on screen depends on the explicitness and frequency of the activity, its relevance to the storyline and the target audience.
- Scenes depicting sexual activities such as bondage or sexual violence and paedophillia will be subject to strict review and may only be allowed under a higher rating, depending on the treatment and context. The content should also not be gratuitous or excessive.
- Films likely to encourage deviant sexual activites such as paedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia are not permitted even under the R21 rating.
- Films should not promote or normalize a homosexual lifestyle. However, non-exploitative and non-explicit depictions of sexual activity between two persons of the same gender may be considered for R21.
- Content considered to be pornographic in nature is not allowed for all ratings.
5. Language
- Coarse language and gestures with sexual connotations are not allowed in G films as they are easily imitated by young children. In PG films, mild and infrequent expletives may be permitted. Stronger language is acceptable in NC16 films. When classifying M18 and R21 films, consideration would be given to the degree of offensiveness (eg. Vulgarity and religious association ) and frequency of such language.
- Films with dialect content are allowed on a case-by-case basis. Chinese films meant for theatrical release should generally be in Mandarin, in line with the Speak Mandarin Campaign (started by the government)
6. Drug Use
- Clear instructive details are not allowed in G and PG films as they can be imitated by the younger audience. Such scenes are more acceptable for higher ratings if they are justifiable by context. Portrayals glamorising or encouraging the use of illegal drugs are not permitted even under R21.
7. Horror
- Classification of horror films will take into consideration the impact and shock effect of such films to ensure that younger audiences are protected from disturbing materials.
Case Study #1 : Singapore Rebel, directed by Martyn See (2005)
In May 2005, a month before the 18th Singapore International Film Festival , the Board of Censors ordered the withdrawal of Singapore Rebel (2005), Martyn See’s documentary on the opposition politician Chee Soon Juan. Marty See was informed through the festival organizers that not only had his film breached a section of legislation called the Films Act which proscribed “party political films,” but that if he did not withdraw, he would be liable for prosecution and either fined up to $100,000or jailed for up to two years. He had no choice but to withdraw. Chee Soon Juan – a non violence activist and critic of the ruling party’s dominance in government since self- rule in 1959, is a stranger to neither persecution nor prosecution.
The police commenced investigations into the film’s legal status. Camera and documentary footage were seized. Martyn See’s friends were also summoned for questioning.
The result of an overnight amendment to the Films Act which further undermines opposition visibility in public, this is the second time in five years that a documentary about an opposition politician has been prevented from being publicly screened, recalling the sweeping dimensions of Singapore’s censorial net, as well as how some recent Singaporean films have established themselves as its more indignant nemesis.
In both cases, neither the government nor the police have been forthcoming in explaining why the films are illegal, and why state- sponsored control has been carried out with such ugly excess.
In March 2009, the government amends the Board of Films to allow for certain political films on condition that they do not contain dramatization, animation, unscripted reality and scenes of illegal activities. In September 2009,the government lifts a four-year ban on the film 'Singapore Rebel', and gives it a M18 rating, which allows those above 18 years old to view it. Its filmmaker Martyn See calls the decision "symbolic", as the film has been viewed more than 400,000 times online.
Case Study #2 :Tanjong Rhu, directed by Boo Jun Feng (2008)
Threshold, directed by Loo Zi Han (2009)
In 2009, two short films, Tanjong Rhu by Boo Jun Feng, and Loo Zi Han’s Threshold were withdrawn from a film festival partly sponsored by the MDA, held at the Singapore National Museum just a week before its public screening. Both films were loosely based on true life incidents of police entrapment of a gay man in one film and 12 gay men in another.
Both the films have been rated R21 and uncut by the censorship board and could have legally been shown at the festival or at any other venue licensed to screen R21 films.
Although inspired by a real-life incident when 12 men in Singapore were arrested in a police entrapment exercise in 1993, the 19-minute Tanjong Rhu features a fictional character recounting his arrest and how the incident had affected his life a decade on.
Boo Jun Feng is recognised as one of Singapore’s most promising young directors having won the Best Director and Best Film Awards for Keluar Baris at the Singapore International Film Festival (SIFF) in 2008.
Tanjong Rhu premiered at the SIFF in April 2009 and won the audience award at the Torino GLBT Film Festival the same month. It was also nominated for a Teddy Award at the 59th Berlin Film Festival and has been screened at the 15th Palm Springs International Short Fest & Film Market and 18th Tokyo International Lesbian & Gay Film Festival. It is also showing tonight at the Arts House as part of the month-long Indignation gay pride season.
Loo Zihan’s Threshold is also loosely based on an entrapment exercise involving a gay trainee doctor entrapped by the police for drug possession. In the 20-min film, two officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau are seen preparing to ambush their suspect in a hotel room where they had arranged to meet.
Loo's debut feature Solos is banned in Singapore although it was shown at several festivals in South Korea, France, US and Hong Kong. It also won him the Premio “Nuovi Sguardi” (new perspective) Award at the 23rd Turin International GLBT Film Festival, Italy.
Loo Zi Han, who was voted Valedictorian of the Year 2009 at Nanyang Technological University School of Art, Design and Media said in his valedictory speech that he had wanted to talk about "integrity" and "breaking new boundaries" in his original speech but changed his mind due to a recent incident.Prior to the convocation ceremony, he received a note from the school to change his thesis film’s poster ,Threshold,as it was deemed ‘inappropriate’. He said:"My first thought was to make the changes to the poster as required - but subsequently, as I was practicing for this speech, I realized that I could not say the words I drafted originally with conviction and authority by subjecting my work to censorship which I did not understand. I felt a sense of responsibility to my fellow graduates, who have voted me in as Valedictorian to speak up on their behalf."
The poster for his film "Threshold" shows a shirtless man standing at a basin while hands from behind hold his left shoulder and waist. A mirror in front of him shows the reflection of another man.
Loo Zi Han, 2009, Threshold
“As artists, we should not only strive to produce great art – but also bear responsibility for the art we produce. Otherwise, we betray ourselves, and our audiences,” Loo said.
He withdrew the poster rather than subject it to any changes for it to be exhibited.
The Censorship Review Committee (CRC) 2009
In September 2009, the government appointed 17 people from diverse background to sit on a committee tasked with updating policies on censorship of the media and the arts. The committee will review content issues in broadcast, films, videos, publications, audio materials, the arts and the new media.
These include the fine-tuning of film and video classifications ; sale and distribution of videos and content issues related to entertainment and lifestyle publications. The committee will ask for feedback from industry players and member of the public through focus group discussions.
This is the fourth censorship review : the first was in 1992 and the second was in 2003. The reviews have generally liberalized the arts and media landscape. Some changes that were made included giving citizen advisory panels more say on censorship and introducing a film and video classification system. The reviews are supposed to be spaced 10 years apart, but the committee was formed ahead of the 10- year interval because since the review 10 years ago, the media landscape had since changed dramatically.
CRC Review 2010
After a year being formed, the Censorship Review committee released a report in September 2010. They spent the year reviewing the existing regulatory framework ; interacting with the public,industry, media and arts practitioners to understand their views and concerns. The feedback showed overall that a significant majority of Singaporeans is satisfied with current content guidelines, and that there is a broad desire to protect the young from unsuitable content, and to respect racial and religious sensitivities.
In the review, the committee has recommended introducing a PG 13 rating to allow for more nuanced classification of films, and retaining the R21 rating but allowing such films to be shown in heartlands cinemas, subject to certain advertising and timing restrictions. Currently these films can only be shown in cinemas in town. The CRC review pushed for more co-regulation between government and industry.
The main idea of the report is to enable parents to make informed media choices for themselves and their children ; creating more avenues for collaboration between government, industry and consumers; and improving transparency and accountability in regulations and processes.
Conclusion
Filmmakers are constantly pushing the artistic boundaries, and constantly having to self-censor in order to stay out of trouble with law. The boundary has constantly been pushed, and shifted, as we see in this paper- that things are slowly changing.
Regardless of few works that have pushed the boundaries, significant majority of Singaporeans think that the Censorship standards are adequate while a large number believe they should be stricter.
Resources :
Censorship Review Committee 2009/10
Board of Film Censors, Film Classification Guidelines
