The Insider: Censorship laws

Q: How do film and television censors decide what’s appropriate and what crosses the line?

A: Even for seasoned locals, Singapore’s OB (out-of-bounds) markers – the official criteria for appropriate material – remain shrouded in mystery. The term comes from one of our nation’s favourite pastimes – golf – and is used on courses to indicate prohibited playing areas. But unlike the fixed OB markers in golf, its censorship-related counterpart is constantly changing with the sociopolitical climate.

So what exactly can we get away with, and what will result in a (cane) stroke? It seems puzzling that a violent film like The Passion of the Christ was screened as it was, while off-kilter comedy shows like Family Guy – whose non-sequitur jokes barely last more than a few seconds – are censored. Why was it okay to show Quinceañera– a film with a gay subplot, nude scenes and dialogue about ‘eight inches’ – but not okay to read Marquis de Sade, one of the most fascinating literary figures of the 18th century?

Most recently, the Academy Awards experienced some snippage. The offending material wasn’t a wardrobe malfunction or s*x – it was the acceptance speeches of Milk screenwriter Dustin Lance Black and Milk actor Sean Penn. Black expressed how gay rights activist Harvey Milk ‘would want me to say to all of the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight…no matter what anyone tells you, God does love you’. Sean Penn sarcastically addressed the audience as ‘Commie, homo-loving sons of guns’ which probably didn’t translate well to non- Western cultures unfamiliar with such a tongue-in-cheek approach.

Regional satellite TV service STAR World cut audio each time either of the men said ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’, while the local broadcaster made careful snips in Oscar re-runs. Local gay rights activist Alex Au suggested that ‘[STAR World] had to achieve the lowest common denominator of all the territories they broadcast in,’ and described this as a problem more to do with governments than broadcasters, ‘especially in the case of Singapore, which needs to be connected to the world in order to thrive’. Its media restrictions, he said, are ‘self-defeating…all the more when technology is likely to overtake domestic laws.’

At a 2007 student forum, The Straits Times recorded a spirited interaction between Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and film/literature student Michelle Chiang as the latter claimed the censorship code has affected local artists’ ability to produce ‘films relating to politics and explicit art…as in maybe films that depict homosexual roles.’ Mr Lee’s response? ‘Surely you can find expression through many other areas…’ While gay sex is illegal in Singapore, based purely on principle, this suggests that a film showing someone urinating in an elevator or chewing gum (both illegal) should be blacklisted, too. And what about the film adaptation of Neil Gaiman’s Stardust, in which Robert De Niro plays a cross-dressing pirate who literally comes out of the closet – why wasn’t that censored? HBO Asia rep Angela Poh didn’t elaborate, only saying that the channel ‘works closely with the censors to determine what goes on air, and as with any programme in Singapore, edits made are in compliance to the standard guidelines which include profanities, extreme violence, offensive sexual activities etc.’

Perhaps it’s about time to clear up the vagueness as to what constitutes an OB marker and the selective criticism directed at certain issues, especially in our Information Age.