Confusing – this gag on critical films

This report was published in TODAY on 13th April 2005.

Clear rules needed if local film industry is to thrive
Siew Kum Hong

The 18th Singapore International Film Festival (SIFF) opens tomorrow, promising yet another line-up of cutting-edge films. It comes soon after the recent Singapore Film Week, where a number of made-in-Singapore films were screened in London.
.
It might, therefore, appear that the film scene in Singapore is alive and well. But then again, maybe not, bearing in mind that a local film-maker had to withdraw his short film from the SIFF after the Media Development Authority (MDA) classified it as a "party political film".
.
It is an offence under the Films Act to make, distribute or exhibit party political films. Such films include, among others, work that "contains wholly or partly either partisan or biased references to or comments on any political matter, including ?a current policy of the Government or an issue of public controversy in Singapore".
.
What is noteworthy is that this is a blanket ban, unlike the normal regime for film censorship, where there is a tiered rating system with the possibility of cuts for objectionable content.
.
When these provisions were introduced in 1998, opposition and nominated MPs had criticised them as being so broad as to cover all films commenting on local political issues.
.
Even PAP MP Dr Yaacob Ibrahim felt the provisions could have been "clearer and more precise". NMP Zulkifli Baharudin described them as "sweeping and vague". NMP Claire Chiang pointed out the danger of "giving unnecessarily broad powers to bureaucrats who will want to err on the side of caution and end up banning any social commentary here".
.
It seems that Ms Chiang may have been proven right.
.
Last month, Mr Martyn See's short, Singapore Rebel, was classified by the MDA as a party political film, and they advised the SIFF organisers to ask Mr See to withdraw it, failing which "the full extent of the law would apply".
.
Mr See duly withdrew his film on opposition politician Chee Soon Juan.
.
This is not the first time it has happened. In 2002, four lecturers from Ngee Ann Polytechnic submitted a documentary titled A Vision of Persistence about opposition politician J B Jeyaretnam, to the SIFF. They withdrew it when told it was a party political film.
.
The stated rationale for these provisions in the Films Act was to prevent American-style political commercials taking root here, which would distort issues and hamper serious debate.
.
Fair enough. Yet, the actual words used in the statute seem to go beyond that, to the extent that any film that makes a stand on a local political or social issue, regardless of its treatment, would fall foul. But which film-maker worth his salt would make a film about an issue and not set out his stand?
.
The MDA is only doing its job in enforcing the law as it stands, but it should explain the basis for its classifications. For instance, it should explain why Jack Neo's much feted I Not Stupid, which was one long critique of Singapore's streaming policy, was felt not to contain biased references to or comments on a current policy of the Government, and hence was not classified as a party political film.
.
Another example would be Mr Royston Tan's Cut. This satire on the MDA's censorship policies was described as an "unbecoming attempt to undermine the standing of a public institution". But it was not classified as a party political film. Instead, it went through the normal film licensing processes, was rated PG and passed without cuts, and allowed to open last year's SIFF.
.
The MDA's present practice of referring to a film as a party political film leaves a lot to be desired.
.
More importantly, the wording of the Films Act itself, if not its rationale, needs to be reconsidered.
.
The Government is, on the one hand, pushing hard to develop a media and film industry in Singapore, and also encouraging youths to speak up and be socially and politically engaged.
.
On the other hand, the law circumscribes the ability of youths to use a medium that appeals to them, to express their thoughts. This inconsistency is hard to reconcile.
.
At the end of the day, we all want a thriving local film industry. We want people to be active and engaged, to speak up and be heard. We want clear rules that are equally enforced and seen as being equally enforced.
.
So, let's all work towards those common goals.
.
The writer is a lawyer commenting in his personal capacity. Do you have a view on this? Email us at
.
news@newstoday.com.sg