2010 Arts Community Position Paper on Censorship and Regulation 1 To: Censorship Review Committee (CRC) 2009/10 Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) Introduction In mid-2009, members of the Singapore arts community came together to select candidates for consideration as Nominated Members of Parliament (Arts, Media and Sport). Following the successful application to the position by one of their selected candidates, Audrey Wong, 180 members of the community interested in developing a more sustained engagement with issues relating to cultural policy and the creative professions came together under the loose name ‘ArtsEngage’. In May 2009, the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) announced a mid-term censorship review. Feeling that they could make a useful contribution to this process, ArtsEngage proposed 22 names for inclusion in the Censorship Review Committee. None were selected. Over the following months, interested members of the arts community (including practitioners from theatre, film, the visual arts, the literary arts and other forms) have continued to engage with the Censorship Review process. This has included: Email discussion on ArtsEngage Being interviewed by the press Meetings amongst interested practitioners, and discussions with the public A review of earlier CRC reports, and of ‘best practices’ in other countries A survey of censorship experiences by a diverse range of practitioners (See Appendix 1) Participation in CRC focus groups Discussions with individual members of the CRC A presentation to the CRC Participation in a follow-up presentation by the Media Development Authority (MDA) ArtsEngage would like to place on record its thanks to individual members of the CRC who met for frank and open conversations, and to the CRC for inviting it to address the Committee on 9 February 2010. This position paper represents one outcome of this on-going process of consultation and debate. 2 Basic Position The basic position of the arts community on censorship and regulation has changed little from that articulated in the 2003 “Arts Community Proposal” submitted to the CRC of 2002/2003. There, our position was “Yes to regulation, no to censorship”. Subsequent experience, however, has caused us to reformulate our position slightly more insistently: Censorship isn’t working: regulate instead. Censorship entails proscribing content, prohibiting its public presentation, and/or preventing its creators from working towards its realisation. While conducted by civil servants who may sincerely believe they act in the name of the public good, censorship is often politically motivated, and always arbitrary. It fosters a culture of dependency on the part of the public, timidity on the part of institutions, and resentment or self-censorship on the part of content producers. It is costly, inefficient, and dignifies no-one. Regulation entails the disinterested classification of content according to publicly available guidelines. It enables access to the widest choice of content for the greatest number of individuals. It promotes responsibility on the part of all stakeholders, and transparency and accountability within and between institutions. Disagreements and contested decisions are resolved through an open and inclusive appeals procedure. Regulation is no panacea, but by comparison with censorship, it empowers applicants, decision-makers and audiences alike. Of course, there is already a substantial regulatory component to the current censorship regime in Singapore. Indeed, it is because the foundations of a regulatory infrastructure are in place that divesting institutions and mindsets of censorious procedures and attitudes is not only sound in principle, but possible in practice. This does not mean, however, that ‘tweaking’ the system will suffice, since, in our view, the problem is systemic. As long as regulation and censorship are confused, the exercise of the latter will continue to impede the transparent and accountable execution of the former. It may be the case that in some areas of cultural production and content management, distinguishing between censorship and regulation is a less pressing concern than maximising profits. We are also aware of a perception in some quarters that artists represent a ‘vocal minority’ at the ‘libertarian’ end of a spectrum, with ‘concerned parents’ and ‘social conservatives’ at the other. This is untrue. We are a diverse group of individuals brought together not by a sense of self-righteous indignation or the need to defend abstract values, but by long experience of dealing with the current and previous censorship regimes in Singapore. The comments and proposals that follow are not pie-in-the-sky ideals, but workable solutions to fundamental problems with the current system that are both principled and practical. As citizens and residents of Singapore, we find the prevalence of censorship to be at odds both with the core values of democracy, equality and justice enshrined in the Pledge and instilled in us from young, and with Singapore’s status as a dynamic, forward-looking society with a 21st Century economy. As practising writers, artists and administrators, the effects of censorship impact all aspects of our creative and professional lives. In part, this is because of the uncertainty and anxiety it arouses. But, as extensive consultation with our peers has made plainly apparent to us, it is primarily because of how insidiously the censoring impulse has spread through institutions and the social body more generally. Today, the outright banning of 3 cultural products is relatively rare; but censorious interference by the state in all levels of the creative process and the presentation of its outcomes is all too common. This, in turn, appears to have fed a risk-averse culture among institutions that take their cue from government, and an expectation of censorship-on-demand among certain individuals within society. In light of the very real social and moral challenges Singaporeans face in the global age, this situation is untenable. In what follows, we summarise our perceptions from the receiving end of the current censorship regime, and outline how we think the system can be improved. Problems of Censorship Lack of clarity and transparency about rules and processes Timelines, guidelines and other information are not always readily available; where they are, wording can be vague, and decision-making processes obscure. Inconsistencies in the treatment of local and foreign works Different standards are used in judging local and foreign works often to the detriment of local work ‘Censor first’ attitude On certain questions of content or form, the first impulse is to censor, with the individual merits of the case only given due consideration after the ‘alarm bells’ have started ringing. Disproportionate response to criticism or complaints Letters of complaint to the press or government appear to trigger a disproportionate and over-cautious response. This indicates a lack of faith in the regulatory procedure, and an unwillingness publicly to defend decisions or the merits of specific works. Inconsistency in inter-agency interactions Besides the Media Development Authority (MDA), a number of other statutory boards and ministries are involved in censoring cultural products. However, this appears to happen on an ad hoc and rather obscure basis, leaving few avenues of appeal for censored artists, who may not be permitted to know the source of the prohibition against them or their work. Multi-level censorship The government is extensively involved in the administration, funding, promotion, housing, hosting, curating, regulating and censoring of artworks. The scope for interference both direct and indirect in the creation and public presentation of a work is therefore wide. As with the point above, the results are inconsistent, with sometimes contradictory information being given out by different government agencies, and decisions by one being reversed by another without explanation. Existing rules flouted It appears that the demands of one ministry or agency can override the judgments of another, even where the latter has operated in accordance with available guidelines. 4 Personalisation of the process Censorship decisions seem to vary from individual to individual, demonstrating the need for more robust and transparent regulatory guidelines. Sometimes, a decision can stand or fall on personal contacts. Culture of defensiveness, secrecy and intimidation There seems to be a general perception in government that artists are a threat, who take pleasure in embarrassing it locally or internationally. The modus operandi for censoring individuals reflects this misperception. Communications take on a furtive quality, being conducted by phone or face-to-face meetings, rather than in writing; decisions are made – or at least communicated – at the last minute; additional demands are made of artists at the precise moment they are most focused on their work; compromise solutions entail the removal of government logos from publicity. Lack of consumer advice It is not easy for members of the public to find out why and how a given work has been censored. Informed consumer choices are therefore hard to make. Impoverished public discourse The level of public discussion of censorship in the media is clichéd, insubstantial, and ill- informed. We take this to be symptomatic of the constraining effects of censorship itself on the quality and