Questions of Censorship

A ban on political film and video sparks debate

At issue was an amendment to the 1981 Film Act that allows fines of up to $62,000 or two years in prison for anyone who imports, produces, distributes and screens a "party political film." The ban, according to the minister for information and the arts, Brigadier-General George Yeo, does not apply to broadcast media, which is covered by separate legislation. The new amendments emerged in response to a request two years ago by a tiny opposition party, the Singapore Democratic Party, to make a self-promotional video. At the time, the government rejected the request. Yeo says he introduced the changes to the Film Act because he thought the issue should be debated in public.

That the bill would pass was never in serious doubt. The ruling People's Action Party enjoys an 81-2 majority in elected seats. Nevertheless, debate was lively. Speaking in support of the ban, Yeo said the government was concerned that political discourse in Singapore would degenerate into 30-second spots directed by image consultants. The government, he said, wants "to keep political debate in Singapore serious." PAP legislator Yaacob Ibrahim said the law was designed to prevent the "McDonaldization" of campaigning. Another supporter, MP Chew Heng Ching, said the bill did not discriminate against minority parties since it banned political video messages from all sources -- including the ruling party.

But Zulkifli Baharudin, one of several appointed MPs who spoke against the legislation, said the law impacts parties unequally. "The PAP already has many ways of reaching the public. The television and radio are government-owned. The newspapers maintain pro-government editorial policies. For opposition parties, video tapes are one tiny way to redress this imbalance." Veteran oppositionist Joshua Jeyaretnam contended the move was part of a long-term effort by the PAP to deliberately stifle debate.

Critics also took issue with what they said was vague language in the bill that made its potential sweep overbroad. In part, the legislation defines a party political film as one "made by any person and directed toward any political end in Singapore" or one that contains "partisan or biased references on any political matter." This would include a film with "any matter which is intended or likely to affect voting in any election." Some in Singapore note that, under such a definition, the recent film 12 Storeys, which poked fun at many government policies, could have been banned. In reply, Yeo says simply the bill will not stifle the arts or hurt the city-state's film industry: "Not at all."

Approved just before the ban on political videos was legislation that broadens the authority of censors responsible for blocking smut. From now on, the law applies to material deemed pornographic transmitted on CD-ROMs, digitally created sound and images, and even e-mail. Penalties for first-time purveyors include fines up to nearly $50,000. In the end, however, few argued with these changes. The heaviest criticism was reserved for the ban on political videos. Says Jeyaretnam: "Politics has become a dirty word in Singapore."