Saturday, September 24, 2005

An analysis of 'party political films' by ex-journalist

Cherian George is an ex-journalist with the Straits Times and the author of Air-Conditioned Nation. He is currently an assistant professor at the National Technological University.

Cherian is also a blogger.

Singapore: New Media, Politics & the Law & Air Conditioned Nation

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

In 2002, Parliament amended the Films Act to declare moving pictures to be an illegal medium for furthering any political objective. The Government's justification for such a sweeping move was basically that video is an irrational and emotional medium, and should not be exploited for political competition. The additional impact is to control a medium that has become increasingly accessible to small producers, in terms of technology and cost.

The Act bans anyone from importing, making, reproducing, exhibiting, or possessing for the purpose of distributing, a "party political film". If found guilty, the offender can be fined up to $100,000 or imprisoned up to two years.

If you think there's a loophole in the "party political" label, think again. The law defines this genre to cover not only "an advertisement made by or on behalf of any political party in Singapore" but even any film "made by any person and directed towards any political end in Singapore".

Although the old-fashioned term "film" is used, the Act defines this medium broadly, to include not just celluloid, but also digital material that can be displayed "as wholly or partly visual moving pictures". This seems to cover CD-ROMs with some video content, streaming video on the internet, and so on.

So, at its broadest, the Act bans anyone from having anything to do with showing any moving images intended to further any political cause.

The only apparent wiggle-room is in the intentions of the offenders. First, the phrase "directed towards" any political end suggests that the political effect of the film must be intentional. Second, a person is said to commit an offence if he distributes or shows a film "knowing or having reasonable cause to believe" that the film is party-political.

Therefore, it looks as if the Act is not meant to catch the filmmaker who makes a political film by accident (which could happen if a film’s message is exploited for political ends after it is made - for example, Jack Neo's "The Best Bet" could be screened to serve an anti-casino platform during an election, even if such use wasn't Neo's original intent; in such a scenario, Neo would probably be safe). In addition, distributors oblivious to the content of a film could plead ignorance.

It should also be pointed out that the Act does not appear to make it an offence to watch a party political film, or to possess a copy for personal use. This is in keeping with the Singapore authorities' broad approach to censorship, which is to tackle producers and distributors, rather than go after individual consumers.

That's what the Act says. In a letter to the media in May 2005, the information ministry (MICA) clarified how it would interpret the Act's provisions. MICA said that "it is not true that all films with political themes will be disallowed".

"The ban here is only on films which deal with political issues in a partisan manner, such as a film aimed at furthering the cause of a political party or influencing the outcome of an election, or which presents a one-sided view of political issues of the day. Unbiased reporting of political issues on film would not be unlawful," MICA's letter said.

MICA also restated the official rationale for the ban: " 'Party political films' are disallowed because they are an undesirable medium for political debate in Singapore. They can present political issues in a sensational manner, evoking emotional rather than rational reactions, without affording the opportunity for a meaningful rebuttal or explanation to audience and viewers."

In principle, the legislation applies equally to the ruling party and to the Opposition. However, it disadvantages the Opposition disproportionately, for two reasons.

First, with government-supervised mainstream media already biased towards the ruling party, the Opposition is more dependent than the PAP on alternative channels such as video (and the internet). Second, the PAP's ideological dominance is such that much of its platform now sounds like "common sense" rather than patently "political". Furthermore, being the government of the day allows it to couch its messages as ostensibly apolitical "national education". Thus, while a video biography of JB Jeyaretnam would probably fall foul of the Films Act as furthering a "political end", a video biography of Lee Kuan Yew would be regarded by regulators as part of the Singapore story.

(Correction : The Films Act was amended in 1998, and not 2002 as stated by Cherian above)

1 comment:

Joe90 said...

Looks like the interpretation and exercise of the laws are still heavily stacked in the ruling party's favor, aren't they? George is saying something to the effect that in an ideal world, even Channel News Asia would also run afoul of the Films Act if it continued to make biographical shows about LKY or any other ruling party member. But then again, Singapore is (still) not part of that ideal world now, is it?