And the saga continues. In response to the release of the Censorship Review Committee 2009's report with its whopping 80 recommendations, Arts Engage has compiled some 20 reponses from various people. I've posted them all here with permission. You may also want to check out some of the feedback the CRC2009 had gathered while they were doing the report here. Elsewhere in their site, there are also links to feedback from various industries too. Happy reading, folks! *** When an art-work is rated R(21), no censorship should be done to the piece. Showing of the art-work needs to be in full. -- Richard Chua   ***   The CRC recommendations are applaudable. The committee had taken some risks and put forward recommendations that will engage the community, government and the corporation. As I read through the recommendations, I felt that there is a certain degree of self-censorship from the CRC. There is too much emphasis on public education as a way of raising awareness. Haven't I heard this before? Raising awareness is useful but I often wonder why this form of educating people should be emphasised in all of the recommendations to the government. shouldn't the CRC be recommending points that will challenge the government?  I mean, if the report is already taking a view on what should be the status quo or what should be the right thing to do in order to have the recommendations adopted, aren't we making the government do little work? shouldn't our government be the one to decide on whether they want to increase censorship or not? Why should the CRC make things easier for them?  For me, I would have liked it better that the report present more radical recommendations such as banning censorship or lifting restrictions on films. I would feel that I have a respectful committee to trust in. I expected more progressive reforms from the report but I am left feeling that same sense of wondering why Singapore cannot overcome self-censorship in order to reach its fullest potential. -- Sha Najak   ***   Would appreciate if the committee could put a targeted 'time-line' for all the suggestions and aims/objectives they have mentioned in the report. Even if it's a rough one... e.g. month/year? -- Zelda Tatiana   ***   The CRC report broadly argues for a paternalistic approach of control, rather than attempting to promote understanding, knowledge, tolerance and dialogue at all levels. While the argument for responsibility as a whole is not flawed, however responsibility is only part of the solution; possibilities for open and transparent dialogue with and within the community is the other necessary part, and it is the part that is often lacking in bureaucratic gate-keeping. Co-regulation is perhaps possible if both parties are on equal footing, but in the case of artists and arts groups it is an asymmetrical relationship of power. If the other co-regulator (presumably a government agency or venue) does not agree with the artists, who is likely to have to concede or comply? Not to say that artists are only looking to be disagreeable, but the inherent disadvantage in the relationship already makes the process suspect. Term-licensing may work for financial processes but not for artistic content whose purpose is to create new ideas and push boundaries in exploring and expressing the human condition. But in the case term-licensing becomes reality and artists do declare what they believe to be the nature or context of their work to the governing agency, is the agency to be the sole judge of the rather subjective accuracy or compliance of the license or rating? This raises the question, who are the supposed audiences for the arts: a few members of the governing agency, or the rest of the population? -- June Yap   ***   What I thought interesting is that they have at least included under item 67 (AnnexA) for a 'term licensing scheme' for the Art group, although they did mentioned on the same breadth that this is to be decided by the regulator..... and implemented, but based on 'agreed criteria'. I do not know what this so called 'agreed criteria' would entail. If the criteria could decided and settled through consultative efforts between all parties, then well and good, if not, I feel may be a point for further contention. -- Michael Tan, concerned citizen   ***   I hate to be a grumpy old cynic, because I know the arts community has spent so much time and effort trying to get their views across, and I also know folks in the public service who are very sincere about changing things. But reading this, I can’t help but recall past consultation/reform efforts (S21, anyone? Remaking Singapore?) and wonder whether any truly substantive changes actually resulted from them. The report seems well-intentioned and reasonably phrased, but I’m still seeing things in there that were canvassed in earlier rounds of feedback. That they’re still floating about here and continue to be nestled in vague, exhortatory language doesn’t exactly make me feel encouraged. But maybe legislation is doomed to always be in arrears of broader society. So putting aside my crustiness, I think some of the proposals are good ones, if long overdue. I’m happy about the harmonizing of the ratings system, for instance. It’s been obvious for at least the past fifteen years that media-specific regulations are ineffective, because of digital convergence. I’m annoyed, however, about how the committee feels that “independent research” is necessary to establish a “firm basis” for the liberalization of dialect content policies. Do we really need to waste time and money to churn out papers that will arrive at the obvious conclusion that naturalistic dialogue should be allowed in local fiction programmes, whether in films or TV? There’s also lots of nice, huggy-wuggy stuff about increased transparency and improved consultation, but we’ve heard this before. Well, hopefully, this time it’ll be different. -- Colin Goh   ***   The Censorship Review Committee has recognized some of the more pressing issues facing the arts industry currently – and proposing rather ingenious methods for allowing more diverse content for the society. Their general stance in encouraging greater transparency and adopting co-regulation with industry players is a great move forward to create more robust arts community. Some of the more significant features include adding a youth panel to allow more communication, and the adoption of a term licensing scheme for arts entertainment – which are definitely beneficial in the long run, allowing more opinions to be heard, and thus allowing a beneficial exchange of ideas, without the rigors of the current processes. The committee has also allowed more autonomy on the industry and the community, coming up with recommendations of allowing R21 content on various platforms and encouraging greater leeway for film screenings at film festivals. However, some other responses seemed to have neglected some of the realities of the society – It was noted that in the Censorship Review Committee 2010 Survey,  the opposition of sales of adult publications seemed to imply that the majority still holds a rather conservative view. Perhaps, in the interest of widening the media content and creating an exchange of ideas, one should also consider implementing dialogue sessions within the term licences for arts entertainment to allow members of the public to understand a work better, and gain new insights on sensitive issues. Another worry present seems to be the heavy emphasis placed upon parental guidance and cyber-wellness education in schools. The effectiveness of such schemes may be questioned for the society is comprised of differing social strata with varying degrees of education background. The idealistic method of educating the masses/parents/schools and equipping them with tools seemed like a rather impracticable method, since it would be hard to ensure the knowledge is properly percolated through the differing social strata. While the general stance of the committee is a heartening one, it should be noted that proposing the guidelines and framework is one but many of the processes that govern the growth of the arts community. The implementation of these frameworks should adhere the general principles advocated here, and not be developed in a draconian way which would defeat the entire purpose of embracing change to reflect a more mature mindset. -- Liansheng Wang   ***   The CRC 2010 Report is, generally speaking, a promising one. It offers several positive recommendations such as sustained public education and cyberwellness, parental empowerment through informed decision-making, and the harmonising of classification and ratings across platforms. However, while these go some way towards refining regulatory policies and potentially offering audiences greater consumer choice, it does not address the issue of censorship boundaries and artistic freedom in Singapore. To be sure, the latter is not included in the Report’s Terms of Reference, but unless the broader, more fundamental, and thorny questions over where censorship boundaries lie in Singapore and who decides on this, much of the past frustrations will be replayed. Take for example the recommendation to implement term licensing for arts groups. Here, arts groups are awarded entertainment licenses for a prolonged period, hence doing away with the cumbersome application process. These arts groups only need submit their content online. On the surface this is progressive. However, this echoes the CRC 1991 Report that recommended that theatre groups with a “good track record” could be exempted from script-vetting. Experience and research have shown that despite this, many established theatre groups continued to submit their scripts to the relevant authorities for vetting because they did not know where the so-called “OB markers” (out-of-bounds) were. Hence, instead of risking a cut in public funds or grants should they transgress these OB markers, these groups submitted their scripts to glean “government feedback”. As such, well-intentioned moves to help arts groups bypass cumbersome application processes will not work until arts groups are assured that they will not be financially penalised by the state for pushing artistic boundaries. The aim is not to absolve arts groups from risk or responsibility for pushing boundaries, but rather, to create an environment where falling foul of some peoples’ taste will not lead to ruin. Another recommendation – to encourage greater community engagement by making MDA’s citizen advisory committees more inclusive – may also seem positive, but may have retrospective consequences. On the surface, the move to include people from different walks of life and with different values in the consultative process is laudatory. However, there may be a danger of seeing artistic evolution and creativity held hostage by the tyranny of the majority. It is not a question of respecting dominant values in Singapore which may or may not be conservative in nature, but acknowledging that contrarian views and values must enjoy the same respect as dominant ones, and provided adequate space to flourish and evolve. These are crucial issues that need to be addressed, and the release of the CRC2010 Report is the perfect springboard for discussion. It is hoped that such discussions or media coverage will not be sidelined by the more sensational recommendations like R21 movies in the heartlands. There are serious questions that Singaporeans need to ask themselves if we are to develop artistically and intellectually as a nation. -- Terence Chong   ***   It is noted that the CRC has taken on some recommendations from ArtsEngage with regards to greater tripartite collaboration for co-regulation. While seeking greater collaboration and feedback from the community or public is an encouraging move, I would like to caution against falling back on prescriptive measures of censorship and regulation by relying on the opinions of the public. By default, the majority opinion is more likely to be adhered to in order to prevent social unrest or disorder. Problematic because: Only the dominant voices of the public sphere will be adhered to, denying the minority of their voice and space. Decision made will still be a subjective one based on the biased views of the dominant voices. If not careful, the public is made a tool / excuse for censorship. Public’s participation in censorship matters becomes that of a herd mentality rather than an informed critical choice. The ‘erosion of moral values’ for example is a highly subjective statement in this day and age and is vulnerable to the inclination of the masses - which can really swing either way on the moral scale. For example: The Playboy Magazine. Public survey shows majority are opposed to it – hence ban it: This is a prescriptive measure based on an opinion poll. As opposed to: Letting consumers exercise their choice by not purchasing the magazine on the shelf (placed alongside cigarettes and alcoholic drinks whose sales are regulated by the shops based on legal age limits). If no one chooses to buy the magazine, then the publisher/distributor will naturally stop its circulation. Playboy will be ousted through the consumer’s proactive, critical choice. This assumes that Education in the area of consumer choice needs to provide students (present and future consumers) with critical tools to evaluate the ‘product’, rather than a prescriptive approach. The use of critical thinking pedagogies in approaching cyberwellness curricula is therefore a crucial criteria for inhouse and outsourced programmes. An ethical approach to reading and writing media content which respects all voices both great and small is also crucial. Kids know better – if you preach prescriptive Dos and Don’t to them, they will still find a way to locate ‘products’ of their interest / identity through more deceptive means.   -- Felicia Low   ***   "Tripartite engagement – regulator, community, and industry" Note the call for a more collaborative tripartite partnership – I urge to caution that modalities developing from such a ‘partnership’ should not ossify into that of one regulator, one industry and one community singing with one voice and tune. Especially so with the call for increased engagement with both industry and community where it is suitably recognised there is a diversity of groups and spectrum of views and values held. I support the recommendation for involved public agencies to continually broaden engagement with public at large and they should undertake efforts to render resources/support to sustain this engagement. I also note that there is an oft-repeated call for clearer accountability by an identified competent authority as well as calls for more transparency. I feel that to enhance trust during the implementation process more openness on the part of the governing authorities should also accompany such transparency.   “…mechanisms can be put in place to guide and protect the young.” While this sounds well meaning and logical, we need to view these restrictions guardedly as they can often be and are extended to affect other segments of society. For example, such a point can be easily brought up to buttress the government’s argument in restricting the level of approval and circulation of films exploring past modern political events (17 Years for example).   “…artists should accept that limits to freedom of expression will be determined by the basic aim of preventing social disorder and harm to society.” Different artists working with different mediums touching on different topics will invariably have different responses to the above statement; different segments of the general society similarly will have different acceptance level to the idea that freedom of expression has to be curtailed. The idea of co-regulation is but a compromised position that gives form to this limits on the freedom of expression. Even so, if this allows our local artists so much more breathing space, then it is a window of opportunity that they should reasonably seize. Nevertheless it is still thus important, in my view, as much as possible, to prevent policies from being cast in stone that will invariably set severe limits to the development of the native arts scene, which most determinedly will undermine Singapore’s aspiration to be a truly global city that has a place and its own voice in the international cultural arena. Underlying all this change is the need to prod along the evolutionary process in building (?) a more open and dynamic Singapore, which is inevitably plugged into the global community – the acknowledgment and repeated reference to a socially conservative core segment of the Singaporean community should not hinder the development of a more vibrant native arts scene which seeks to dream and explore beyond the current set of boundaries. After all, productions such as Fried Rice Paradise serves well as comfort food for the conservative masses.  -- Ted Tan   ***   With reference to the Classification and Censorship Principles as listed in Annex A, I would like to express my agreement and disagreement respectively:  (i) Censorship is not a necessity; if used, it is a sharp tool; and regret is no euphemism for bureaucracy; (ii) censorship thwarts the freedom of information (cf. Paragraph 58); the current state of censorship does not reflect ‘the will of a substantial majority of the people’; the ‘majority’ rule is antagonistic to the truth or authenticity of the subject matter; ‘widely-held sentiments’, such as overcrowding and anti-gay slurs in Singapore, has not been accepted as a valid criterion for censorship or for other government policies; (iv) depiction is not necessarily promotion, but promotion should not be disallowed; discussion is not necessarily incitement, but incitement should not be suppressed; instead, resources should be invested as counter-forces to educate and prepare the public on promotion and incitement with respect to sensitive content; (v) given the sensitive content, there is no such ‘competent authority’; censorship is always already biased. Referring to Paragraph 63, a flexible and contextual approach for homosexual content may be perceived as ambiguous, but in actual fact, this recommendation allows the industry and regulators greater leeway in the exhibition of works with positive portrayal of homosexual content if and only if MICA reciprocate and co-regulate with the relevant distributors on a professional level. My suggestion is for MICA to engage in regular dialogues with leaders from the relevant communities, and if classification is a better solution, consider higher ratings of X25 for post-university adults and PMEBs in lieu of banning the work entirely in Singapore. -- Jun Zubillaga-Pow, Musicologist and Director, Singapore Pride Season   ***   I am glad the CRC recognises the role that parents play in guiding their children. We have to take responsibility for ourselves rather than expect an external body to unilaterally decide for us. -- Tan Pin Pin, film-maker   ***   I applaud the CRC for recognizing the importance of parental guidance, and the recommendation to move away from a top-down approach to censorship and regulation. I also applaud CRC’s reccomendations on broadening the access to R21 films in the heartlands and VOD platform, with adequate measures. I am however, still of the position that we should be removing censorship from the equation altogether, and just apply the principles of regulation equally. I’m disturbed by the total blanket silence on banning of films in CRC’s response. As it stands, the banning of films in Singapore has been termed NAR (Not Available for all Ratings). If we are of the view that our society can be educated to decide for our own adult selves what we can and cannot watch, why is there a need to ban films? Why not just rate them R21 and provide the information for consumers to make an informed decision? Are our NS men old enough to fire a rifle but not able to analyse potentially difficult themes? Will a whole nation go to Jihad just by watching a film? If so, it will be due to the lack of discourse and critical thinking, which is by far the greatest failure of our overzealous censorship policies. Our people are in grave danger of losing the immune system to ‘defend ourselves’ against ‘undesirable’ content. Or maybe the CRC thinks we have already lost that immune system, and need the government to keep these ‘undesirable’ content at bay? As we all know, it is not possible in this day and age. Better to train ourselves in the real world defense. -- Sun Koh, film-maker   ***     One would applaud the focus on education in this report.  I would also appeal to the quick research on the issue of dialects.  However, I question the rationale behind the need to penalise arts group/artists who repeatedly cross the OB markers.  One of the important role of an artists is to ask question and to investigate the reality that exists between human beings.  The rationale of the CRC seems to implicate art makers who crosses ob markers frequently would be someone who intend to offend.  That is a flawed arguement and undermine the idea of creating a truthful and honest artwork.There is no need for the Media Development Authority to play the role of gate-keeper because if the art maker did offend, there is the legal body which will play that role vigilantly. -- Kok Heng Leun   ***   I need some elaboration here. How will a declaration system for 'niche art performances' work? Is a theatre group supposed to declare its play as 'containing depiction of celibate women having fun', or 'pro-Singapore but anti-PAP', just to save censors the trouble of vetting the script? And then what? It will be up to any single consumer or a citizen committee member to complain to the authorities about the content and then funding or license will be withdrawn by relevant authorities? Or the authorities can then decide in which GRC the play can be staged for what audience? That's very tripartite then?  Another query - "Broaden public participation in the regulatory process by allowing for public nomination for a proportion of the advisory committee positions."  - should the 'transparent selection process' mean that members of anti-gay churches can just nominate their representatives to the committee without being apologetic about it?" And finally, under film festival: "... films should nevertheless meet the fundamental guidelines of not undermining public order or the nation’s security" - will documentaries about the nasty things that Lee Kuan Yew did as part of his political career still be considered a matter of national  security?" --  Z'ming Huang   ***   As a whole, the report looks promising. But I fear some recommendations will fail the test during the implementation phase.  Vague recommendations such as “Term Licensing” will encounter serious problems during implementation. It is as if the censors are delaying the identification of the OB markers, making the artist take full accountability until a “concerned citizen” complains.  It’s like walking in a minefield, and when it explodes in your face, yellow card!  When “Term Licensing” was implemented briefly in 2003, we still submitted our scripts because we did not want to self-censor.  If co-regulation is a newly coded word for self-censorship, then it is not an effective regulatory device.  An artist should complete a work and stage the work and if and when there is a complaint, a mediation team comprising representatives from various stakeholders could be convened to deal with the matter.  It could very well be an educational process for all involved.  “Term Licensing” assumes that certain elements in a work will arouse tensions that would lead to conflict and violence, and so it is best to co-regulate and kill the possibility at the bud.  If that is the principle we want to operate on, then the casinos should not have materialised since “concerned citizens” were not happy with the idea.  But the government prides itself with unpopular policies believing that it will benefit Singapore’s GDP in the long run.  Why is it that a controversial piece of work would not be a vehicle for discourse and growth, depending on how the tripartite discussions are facilitated and mediated?  Who knows, maybe such tensions would be doused by post-show discussions with no alarm bells ringing at all.  Why are we afraid to be inconvenienced when these are potential opportunities for social cohesion? For me a larger challenge lies outside the report. If MDA is more inclined to identify with and/or has to address the potential member of the public or a 'concerned' citizen complaining, then would NAC be on the side of the artist?  Principally, NAC's role is to champion the arts. If we unpack what that means, my question is would NAC have the autonomy to throw its weight in support of the artist and/or the art work in question during tripartite discussions and negotiations?  That is crucial to me, as an artist, if the recommendations in the report is to be given a fair chance to benefit the whole arts industry where the process of maturing a genuine regulatory mechanism is concerned. -- Alvin Tan   ***   The CRC makes a few good suggestions, such as the importance of empowering and educating parents. One is the recognition that the education of parents and children, indeed of every arts and media consumer, is the way forward. Some of the concepts and recommendations in its report also echo many of those that others have argued for over the years.  But the report is ultimately remarkable to the extent that it endorses the status quo. That status quo is based on three assumptions: firstly, that people are incapable of deciding for themselves, secondly (and contradictory to the first assumption) that these same people when in the majority should decide what the minority can consume, and thirdly, that bureaucrats should be the final arbiters of what is allowable. On content, the report is largely and strangely silent on the case studies documented by Arts Engage. For instance, does the CRC support the ban of the line "In the beginning was the body" from the 2007 play "251"?  On process, the CRC has skirted the necessity of complete transparency and openness in the implementation of censorship and regulation, including making public all deliberations of MDA and the advisory committees and all correspondence between the censor and censored. Arts Engage in its position paper argues that openness and transparency are essential for the professionalisation and accountability of the MDA and other censoring bodies, and for the enlightenment and engagement of Singaporeans. On new recommendations in the report, it is telling that the one to allow R21 films into the "heartlands" cinemas is seen by many as the most significant of the CRC recommendations. Unfortunately, this ‘liberalisation’ will not necessarily be an advance.. It may also unfortunately result in the inadvertent exposure of adult content to children or people who may be offended. Arts Engage argues both for the freedom to have access to content, AND the responsibility to use geographical zoning and other means to protect the young and adults from inadvertent exposure.  The existing arrangement prohibiting R21 films in HDB estates already satisfies both principles. Finally, the most heartening thing to note is that this committee, both the body and its individual members, have been laudably willing to engage the arts community in the important issues of censorship and regulation.   -- Tan Tarn How, playwright and concerned parent   ***   Censorship is here to stay.  There is no attempt to move away from censorship and actively look into mechanisms for regulation. The 2010 CRC report is at best tame.  Disappointing but not unexpected.  One hopes that with increased citizen participation (as recommended by the report), more Singaporeans come to realize that censorship affects everyone, and not only those creating content for films, artworks or media. Censorship  diminishes freedom of expression, thought and choice. -- Tay Tong, Theatreworks   ***   The CRC report accepts that censorship is here to stay. While making a number of positive recommendations and acknowledging the challenges of the new media landscape, one wonders how some of recommendations will be implemented or if they can be implemented at all. I welcome the call for more transparency about MDA’s decisions, but wonder how MDA will put this into practice. More participation by citizens on MDA panels is a good idea on the surface, but as others pointed out, will this unwittingly lead to decisions made by the tyranny of the majority? However, the recommendation to separate appeals committees from MDA is a good call. The emphasis on people having to take more responsibility as consumers, and education on cyberwellness, is welcome although not new. Problem is, people have gotten so used to ‘an authority’ making decisions for them, that such a shift might be difficult to achieve. Parents must take an active role and not leave cyberwellness education to schools, thinking that that is sufficient to educate their children! I suggest that schools run programs to educate parents as well. As for the recommendations directly impacting arts groups –on the surface, the term licensing idea looks good, but again begs the question of how it can be implemented. There have been too many instances of arts groups having received the go-ahead from one agency, only to be told to stop by another agency. This will continue as long as OB markers remain a changing grey area. The report also stays silent on whether content that is given the highest rating (R21) should still be cut. I am glad that the report acknowledges that ‘niche’ arts events and film festivals cater to a segment of the public who understand the purpose and content of these events. Again, however, one wonders how the MDA will handle the ‘controversial’ subjects that surface in these contexts. The recommendation for “a flexible and contextual approach for homosexual content” is also welcome, and I hope to see a change in approach by the authorities here. On paper, co-regulation looks like a nice thing but it still begs the question of who has the final say. But, I hope that MDA takes up the recommendation for more industry dialogue - however, more importantly, the dialogues should be productive and not lip service. I wish the CRC had addressed the need for dialogue between regulator, content provider/ artist and public / community in cases of controversy. We need to have mechanisms in our society where people can come together and hear each other out. As long as the public raises a complaint to MDA, the MDA will act and is most likely to take the side of the public whether or not that is a reasonable reaction. And please allow dialect back into local films. There’s no longer any compelling reason not to. Overall, the CRC makes sensible recommendations. The challenge is how to implement them. -- Audrey Wong , Nominated MP, arts manager & educator:   ***   The Report of the 2009 Censorship review Committee (see www.crc2009.sg) takes realistic stock of the media landscape in its opening sections, and then ducks all the serious issues raised. It recognises that media convergence is happening rapidly. The same content can be delivered on different media platforms, from print to internet to mobile downloads. Moreover, where content used to be produced by big organisations that are susceptible to regulatory pressure, it is much more diffuse today.  It notes too that “the enormous volume of content distributed via the Internet, which bypasses physical media altogether, makes regulation a challenge.” It then paints a picture: “Our regulatory fort was largely built in a simpler era.” But now, the walls of the fortress are being “blasted repeatedly by technological change, [and] will eventually only have its gates left standing, stoically and symbolically defended.” But look at the rest of the report, and it’s mostly about tweaking and oiling the iron gates. Loads of text were devoted to fine-tuning processes; content standards were barely discussed. There were calls upon calls for broadening committees and more “engagement”. There were motherhood statements about a “holistic approach”, shared responsibility and “meaningful partnership”. “The industry should understand and support the need for sound and reasonable regulations,” sounded like a plea on bended knees. The members of the committee seemed never to have interrogated their own paternalistic approach, one where there’s the state doing the regulating allegedly for others’ good. They merely recognised that that state can no longer do it alone and the entire report takes the direction of persuading others to join the state so that it becomes less ineffective. This is especially troubling when it talks about “term licensing” for local arts groups. Instead of licensing one event at a time, the committee suggested that the Media Development Authority (MDA) adopt “essentially a co-regulatory scheme as it allows the arts groups to take over the responsibility of ensuring that they stay within clear guidelines set by the MDA.” The effect is to demand that arts groups self-censor. What is striking is that the report still gives a blank cheque to the MDA to set those “guidelines”. At no point does the report go into a serious discussion of content standards. Where it does, it largely reaffirms existing film and other classifications. With film, it dismisses the lowering of the R21 category to age 18, and it affirms that there should remain a “ban” category. It makes absolutely no mention of the separate provision under which the MDA bans political films. Perhaps to prove that it is capable of laying an egg, albeit a tiny one, the committee recommends the creation of a new category PG13, mostly to serve television. Yet, on page 15, it says: Censorship is a necessary tool, but a blunt one. Its application, while with determination, should be with regret. Censorship is a restriction on personal freedoms, imposed by the government but reflecting the will of a substantial majority of the people. To be accepted as valid, it must be seen to fairly reflect widely-held sentiments. Note the words “substantial majority” and “widely-held”. I will come back to them later. But after mouthing the above, the committee quickly ducks. Perhaps trying to justify why it does not discuss content standards, it next says: The boundaries of censorship, being subjective, should be set through an ongoing engagement with the public. But weren’t they supposed to be the ones engaging and arriving at conclusions? Never mind, it’s bad enough that they affirmed censorship; even if they had engaged and arrived at conclusions, would it be much different from existing? In the few places where the report discusses classification standards (as opposed to banning) it gets somewhat confused. Although it begins well by calling for a harmonised system across all media platforms (currently different platforms have different grading systems) it quickly makes an exception for arts entertainment, and then also says it is not needed for print. It calls for greater leeway for film festivals but also notes that anybody, including commercial operators, can call any screening a film festival.  It never resolves the question that the report itself raises. Page 66 tries to discuss what R21 should mean, but leaves the reader high and dry. It notes that the government wields this classification quite arbitrarily. Where it should mean material that has “explicit content” or “extreme violence and gore”, the report goes on to say, “It was also noted that not all R21 films are so rated because of their adult content. One example cited was Milk, a critically acclaimed film about the first openly-gay person to win elected office in America.” One would have thought that the committee had a responsibility to set down clearer standards, it being their job, but after “noting” the above discrepancy, it says nothing further. At this point, let me bring together the little bit of discussion about homosexual content that the report contains. In the Executive Summary, there are these two oblique mentions: The values and beliefs of minority groups should be respected on the understanding that these are within legal bounds. Consumer advice is the best way to ensure effective audience segmentation, so that those who think they may be offended will be warned away. Censorship decisions should be sensitive to context. Depiction is not necessarily promotion, and discussion is not necessarily incitement. Then on page 76, there is a longer mention: 49. The CRC 2003 recommended that the MDA take a more flexible and contextual approach for homosexual content. It further proposed that greater leeway be given to adults, through suitable channels, to access such content provided the material is not exploitative. In accepting and implementing this recommendation, the MDA has gradually moved towards allowing more content on homosexuality. Generally such content is allowed under the higher, restricted ratings to address concerns over their suitability for younger viewers. Content which glamourises or promotes a homosexual lifestyle is disallowed. 50. This CRC agrees with the proposition that depiction should not be presumed to mean promotion of homosexual lifestyles, and recommends that the MDA continues to adopt a flexible and contextual approach in classifying homosexual content. This will ensure that adults have a wider variety of choices while the young are protected from content deemed unsuitable for them. 51. The CRC notes that the issue of homosexuality continues to be a sensitive subject for many Singaporeans. Nevertheless, based on the principle of informed adult choice, the CRC recommends that a lighter touch be taken in classifying non-explicit homosexual content, subject to the provision of clear and unambiguous consumer advisories. I think the above speaks for itself. But I would like readers to compare the above with the more specific proposal I made to the committee: that a clear policy be articulated that gay themes, characters, emotions and sexual behaviour be treated on par with heterosexual. Depiction of a gay politician in a movie should be rated the same way as that of a straight politician. A movie with a gay couple in a relationship should be classified the same way as a movie with a heterosexual couple in love. A gay teenager coming of age should be given the same rating as a straight teenager experiencing puppy love. This is the kind of specificity that the report dreadfully lacks, substituting it instead with banal references to community engagement and widened consultation. What is a majority? Even when the report tries to argue that minority tastes should be accommodated where legal, that censorship is regrettable and should only be resorted to when a “substantial majority” and “widely-held” consensus can be found (as mentioned earlier) the report demonstrates that it really doesn’t walk the talk. On page 74, it speaks about attitudes to Playboy magazine as a litmus test. It reports that, A similar question on whether to allow the sale of Playboy has been asked in each of the previous CRC surveys since 1992. It is noteworthy that the proportion opposed to Playboy’s distribution in Singapore has fallen with each CRC, from 57% in 1992 to 54% today. In the next breath, it describes that 54 percent as a “clear majority”. Nevertheless, with a clear majority continuing to oppose its distribution, there is no compelling reason to adjust standards at this juncture, notwithstanding the widespread availability of risqué content on the Internet. Keep the ban on the magazine, the report says, so what if crude, full-blown porn is available via the internet? This little bit of incongruity, in my opinion, sums it all up. Never mind the crumbling walls; defend the gate at all cost. -- Alex Au