Censorship- the hottest topic around to talk about for ages, at least that happens in Singapore’s context. One cannot deny that we are receiving messages from the media everyday through- newspaper, magazines/books, random leaflets/brochures, television, radio, internet, etc.
In addition, the balance between the degree of influence of media and the audience’s selection skills (made by decisions) equates to the impact of media in our everyday lives. Our authorities, as our “Big Brother”, aid us in filtering useful information. (And useful information is defined as what we just need to know and not the rest, in this context)
That is when censorship comes in. It is a process that happens during the review of the messages (that are going to be publicised) by the gatekeepers. Censorship mainly involves the editors of the widely read newspapers and magazines. These people take precaution to abide both the visible and invisible rules of censorship in Singapore in order to allow their products to be legally sold here. From my observation, so far it has been fine as not many of us are complaining and the news that we received are one of the most accurate around. (perhaps it’s due to censorship so that’s why our news is THAT accurate?)
But is that really true?
Take for example, our locally made productions. There’s the famous Royston Tan and his several “cut” films and on the other side, Mr Brown and his outspoken (but long gone) columns in the TODAY newspaper on Friday. It shows that there are people who are not exactly on the side with the government and its censorship rules. Are our authorities are too strict with us on expressing ourselves or are they trying to avoid internal conflict amongst ourselves?
I do agree very much on the rules regarding the races and religions, and security issues. It’s important and anyone knows it. But, what about artistic expressions and societal views about the environment we are living in? Surely, that does not interfere with anything that poses dangers to our harmony or security? Some may argue that our Big Brother imposes the invisible rules due to our “deeply conservative” culture. However, with the access to Internet, isn’t it a bit irrelevant to say that we are still very conservative about our way of living?
For instance, our ERP…
This film was reloaded 2 weeks ago, after the original was asked to be taken down due to a notice by Singapore distributor for the German films. This film consists of a sarcastic view on the ERP and the transportation systems here (read the subtitles and ignore the vulgarities used). However, it did not talk about our national security or racism, so why was the “original” film taken down? Maybe, it is because of copyright issues.
At the end of the day, there is no right or wrong answer. As the technology advancement progresses, we are all exposed to different types of media through mainly the Internet and it is hard for our “Big Brother” to continue to look after us. True, our traditional media maybe still censored but people may start tuning to other sources if they know that what they are looking is just the “nice” portrayal of the authorities and not the truth.
The balance of media censorship and its audiences’ rights must be redefined once more.
Chu Yuan
A Said:
on October 16, 2009 at 12:24 PM
First of all, you might want to check for spelling errors.
This article seems more observational than actually informative. Even so, you seem to have started off at the wrong ground.
Censorship suppresses UNACCEPTABLE information, not useful or useless information. That, I think, is more like quality control. Censorship stops information that the government deem unacceptable, information that doesn’t align itself with government policies.
“From my observation, so far it has been fine as not many of us are complaining and the news that we received are one of the most accurate around. (perhaps it’s due to censorship so that’s why our news is THAT accurate?) ”
What is your observation exactly? Where did you observe, what did you observe and how did you observe?
Because from all corners of the Internet where Singapore occupy, you can feel the awareness of censorship prevalent in our Singapore media. And even the articles that are published, are not always reliable and accurate.
I would elaborate on this point, except I think Mr Wang (http://mrwangsaysso.blogspot.com/) does it better. Take a look at his blog, especially his dissection on some of the inaccuracy in the newspapers.
“I do agree very much on the rules regarding the races and religions, and security issues. It’s important and anyone knows it. But, what about artistic expressions and societal views about the environment we are living in? Surely, that does not interfere with anything that poses dangers to our harmony or security? Some may argue that our Big Brother imposes the invisible rules due to our “deeply conservative” culture.”
I do not agree on the rules regarding the races and religions. I would have preferred a free breeding bed for criticism. All the invisible rules about “racial harmony” is simply asking us to tolerate. Tolerance, however, is different from acceptance.
We (Singaporeans) do not discuss it, but we all know it exists and subconsciously we all have some distrust in people of other colours. Just recently I was walking home and I overheard a mother telling her song, “Be careful and don’t anyhow run. Careful ah poo neh neh come catch you” – subconscious prejudice.
Which brings back to my (and your) original topic – censorship. After reading your article, I’m confused as to the actual purpose of your article. What are you suggesting? What do you mean by “balance of media and its audience”?
I look forward to hearing more from you.
A Said:
on October 16, 2009 at 12:26 PM
“Surely, that does not interfere with anything that poses dangers to our harmony or security? Some may argue that our Big Brother imposes the invisible rules due to our “deeply conservative” culture.”
And to add on to my point, I agree that insensitive comments on others’ religion, if not handled properly, will cause trouble. But censoring all of that away, to put it simply, is to pretend the issue doesn’t exist. I disagree with this. This is hypocrisy at its best. Have we, as a society, not advanced and evolved from the 1960s and all its racial riots? Considering all our economical advances, surely it’s time for us to focus more on the only resource we have – PEOPLE.
nic1990 Said:
on October 17, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Hey you!
Haha. I thought the video was funny.
Your discussion provided great insight into censorship. I believe Singapore has been a bit too strict in their censorship because it prevents anyone from expressign their views openly for fear of being charged. Afterall, we all want to keep the statusquo and not make trouble. Maybe thats also why we don’t dare voice out. We were never groomed to express ourselves, even in school.
However, censorship in Singapore I feel has also benefitted us. If the governemnt allowed us to voice out whatever we want, there would be alot of backlash at the government and even other instituitions. That would be extremly detrimental to us as a country because it lowers the respect and trust we have in our government and prevents the country from working towards our goals. Some may say this is very tunnel visioned of me and I do agree because there are countries like the USA which promotes freedom of speech and tehy aren’t in total chaos.
This issue is open to much discussion(:
Celeste Said:
on October 22, 2009 at 2:25 PM
HI CHUYUAN!
I think that censorship is a touchy subject in Singapore. I agree with you about the Govt ways of approaching censorship as well. Some people might say that censorship is limiting our creativity (they think its ironic that we are trying to be an Art hub, yet impose restricitions) Yet, I also believe as what Mr Lee Kwan Yew said in 2006, that creativity can be improved without compromising the importance of racial harmony in Singapore. This is where censorship comes in to prevent issues encouraging racial disharmony.
And I believe that other countries practice this as well.
cforceleste.blogspot.com
A Said:
on October 24, 2009 at 6:39 PM
In reply to Celeste:
How can creativity be improved? By its very definition, creativity is an intangible quality that cannot be “improved” like say, proficiency in science.
Creativity can only be encouraged, and that depends on one many different factors. Censorship, in a sense, forces creativity because you then have to find different ways to criticise things that you want to. Though, I don’t see what is the point of you mentioning creativity here (as in I don’t see its relevance with the topic), perhaps you should elaborate more on this?
Also, I find it remarkably amusing that you chose to quote that particular sentence of MM Lee, because that statement does not hold itself at all.
Going by his logic, it means that loosening up censorship (which by the way if you have paid attention really censors more political content than racial content) would compromise the racial harmony in Singapore.
Can you provide an example where this has been the case?
Because I can provide you examples of the contrary: Switzerland, America, England. These countries, relative to us, have remarkably less censorship and are more democratic. And these countries are multi-racial too. Check Wikipedia for breakdown of the different races.
Our situation is remarkably less unique as our government would admit.
Lastly, I agree that censorship is a touchy subject in Singapore, but I lament for the fact that people no longer want to speak against it.
It exists, it is real. Censorship, no matter what, should be abolished; people should be allowed to speak their mind, even if they’re raining down curses and what-nots on you.
This is called the freedom of speech. By allowing everyone to speak their mind, it in return encourages an environment where everyone dares to speak up, instead of shut up. And at least for me, that’s a better world to live in.
A Said:
on October 24, 2009 at 6:46 PM
And in reply to you, Chu Yuan:
“However, censorship in Singapore I feel has also benefitted us. If the governemnt allowed us to voice out whatever we want, there would be alot of backlash at the government and even other instituitions. That would be extremly detrimental to us as a country because it lowers the respect and trust we have in our government and prevents the country from working towards our goals.”
First, I really think you need to get spell-check. Firefox has it, please use it.
Anyway, I think you’re getting it wrong. Why is backlash at the government wrong?
If there is backlash at the government, it means there is something the government is doing wrong. To put what you just said into perspective:
A little boy stole a book from a bookstore and got caught. He begs and cries, asking the store assistant not to tell his mum.
What would you do if you were the store assistant?
Would you, to save the child from caning and scolding, go along with his pleas?
How would he learn from his mistakes then?
Likewise, when our government made a mistake, we the people should have the ability to criticise them, because the government, no matter what, should be BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.
“That would be extremly detrimental to us as a country because it lowers the respect and trust we have in our government and prevents the country from working towards our goals.”
I’m sorry, but when a government proves itself to be incompetent, the government should be reminded of such.
Chu Yuan Said:
on October 25, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Noted. Im gg to change my errors later.
But in ur comment u are stepping into the side of democracy. U said that people should backlash on the governement if it does something wrong. But what if certain group of come together to overthrow the goverement for their own purposes? Like we see the past warlords in China? And the Thaksin supporters in Thailand? Im sure they have their own reasons. However, in the process of getting their aim to make their stand, they are wasting precious time, human resources and money on war or demostrations.
Hence, the decision is made between being practical or believe in ur idealogy. If the goverenmnet did something wrong but not that impactful, and it has provide us with a comfortable life, why would we emphasis on their wrong-doings and not the benefits that they have given us?
A Said:
on October 25, 2009 at 5:00 PM
History is a very valuable teacher; it teaches us a lot of things.
Do you really think censorship is going to stop the revolutionaries?
Maybe to you, the Thaksin supporters in Thailand are “wasting precious time, human resources and money”. But to them, they are fighting for a belief. They believe that the government should be held accountable for their actions.
But censorship, if History is any correct, often brings about more unhappiness.
Chinese dynasties have fallen because their ruler have become corrupted or complacent, or just generally inefficient with governing.
If you were to draw parallels with today, note that the dynasties are actually monarchic.
When a different dynasty is set up, essentially what happens is a change of rulers. Sounds familiar?
That’s what elections in democratic countries are supposed to do.
In order for an election to be democratic, the voters should be given the real proper information, from both polarities. Censorship prevents that.
Lastly, the government must be held accountable for all its wrong-doings.
Focusing merely on the benefits they have given us is merely short-sighted and myopic, and exactly how our government have trained us to do.
Of course you can argue that ideologies cannot bring rice to the table, cannot provide you with material satisfaction. But at this point, here lies a question:
Kinship doesn’t bring rice to the table, cannot provide you with material satisfaction as well.
Does it mean it’s not important? No it doesn’t.
As the saying goes, 先有国，才有家。
Before you can have a family, you must first be responsible for your country.
Focusing only on benefits, while disregarding the others who are NOT benefited, is myopic, and does not help our country as a whole at all.
A Said:
on October 24, 2009 at 6:49 PM
Lastly,
Don’t fall into the mind-trap that criticism is bad, and if we were allowed to voice out our opinion, our country would instantly fall into chaos.
I’ll end off with a quote from “V for Vendetta”:
“People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.”
Chu Yuan Said:
on October 28, 2009 at 11:40 PM
I realised that I cannot fit my comment into the box on top. So, I shall continue here. haha
I still stand by my stand on censorship is necessary. It can stop revoluntionaries too, although the people may think otherwise of the government’s way of doing. If people are stictly controlled by censorship, fewer will get “brainwashed” or get recruited into those groups who are against the goverenment. Unhappiness of the people still stands but their support for the goverenment will not waver if there are no external sources interfering with their opinions. As you can see, during Mao’s reign, those people are so loyal towards him that they will do anything to conserve the censorship and restrict those who want to speak against Mao (although the ending is not too good either as they went a bit too extreme). So in this case, if the goverenment did not impose any censorship of foreign information, I don’t think the people of China will be that loyal.
Besides that, censorship may not be the cause of changing of rulers as in the case of Mao, it is was people who went overboard with their passion for Mao (or for some other reasons). In addition, no ideologies in this world is perfect. (Not even democracy) If we were to keep harping on the mistakes of the government, we will never be satisfied. ( That’s when censorship comes in so that people won’t b shifting their opinions even further by the mistakes blown up by the media) Everyone makes mistakes but through these mistakes, we will learn to be better. And if the government realised its mistakes, we should just let it go. So rather than going on with our opinions of the “perfect” government or ideology, focusing on the benefits that we gain seems to be better.
A Said:
on October 29, 2009 at 2:14 AM
I hope you never become a journalist, because the job of the journalist is to report the objective truth and we need that more so in Singapore. Going by your thinking, I doubt you can do that without self-censorship (the highest form of brainwash, by the way.)
You just blatantly wrote that you support the brainwashing of the people by the government. Are you really that much of a blind sheep, one who so willingly surrender its will for “peace and stability”?
And seriously, Mao? Not only did you blatantly agree to the brainwashing by the government, you just openly declared that you treat our government as infallible and almost as powerful as a God.
Mao’s policies resulted in one of the worst ever genocide of culture and information.
ONE MAN resulted in the loss of so many books, so many culturally-important artefacts.
Another similar person, who commanded so much “respect” and “loyalty’ was Adolf Hitler. He also didn’t do much good.
Do you really think your mind and your freedom is less important than a power-eager party of people?
How can you support a government that does not know how to rule the country effectively?
I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest PAP doesn’t, because I do think the old guards have done a good job. But recently, however, they’re falling badly.
Mas Selamat escaped. If it was any other country, the head of the department WOULD have been held responsible. Because believe it or not, the head of the department IS responsible.
Have you read about all the recent Temasek Holdings’ lapse of judgment in investments? That company is the investment-wing of our Singapore government. Our government should, by right, be accountable to US PEOPLE.
TH is hardly so.
Do you know how much the ministers are paying themselves?
How about the old lady who is collecting old cardboards?
Yes, there will always be poor people. But if a government can raise its GST while in the middle of the worst inflation in recent years and then blatantly raise their salary, there is something wrong with this government.
And to me, that problem is called complacency.
“In addition, no ideologies in this world is perfect. (Not even democracy) If we were to keep harping on the mistakes of the government, we will never be satisfied.”
I did not claim that it is perfect.
You seem to think that I’m not satisfied. It is possible to be be satisfied with what you have, while still seeking improvements.
I’m satisfied at the country’s safety, but I know there are other areas our country can improve upon. Namely, asking our government to “wake up their idea”.
“(although the ending is not too good either as they went a bit too extreme).”
History is always the best teacher, but often people don’t look carefully. You even admitted it yourself that the ending wasn’t good.
So why step into it in the first place?
“That’s when censorship comes in so that people won’t b shifting their opinions even further by the mistakes blown up by the media”
In other words, you think that despite mistakes, the people should keep quiet, not question, and move on?
That is exactly what is happening now.
Our society is a “three-minute” society. The GST hikes, the ministerial pay raise, the Mas Selamat incident (not to mention the inefficiency of the Coast Guard), the blatant suppression of the people.
All these are critical issues. And yet most S’poreans, like you, prefer to “let it go” and hope that the government “will learn to be better”.
Hope? You have the power to change. No need to hope.
“So rather than going on with our opinions of the “perfect” government or ideology, focusing on the benefits that we gain seems to be better.”
This is so myopic I’m disappointed.
Orry Said:
on October 24, 2009 at 7:06 PM
There is always a right answer.
Just because the government thinks its wrong doesn’t necessarily mean it is.
Edmund Said:
on October 25, 2009 at 4:36 PM
If our citizens are well and properly educated, I believe that censorship will not be needed. As Orry said, just because the government thinks that a certain kind of information is “unacceptable” doesn’t mean that it really is. Censorship is a short cut, the lazy man’s way, of controlling the general public. Just keep information away from the public so that you will not have to explain why it is “unacceptable”. And I really doubt that it is our approach to censorship that makes our news accurate. After all, censorship is the act of deliberately hiding information from the general public. Be it factual, useful or the other way round, we may only be told half the story of what really happened.
Li Yin Said:
on October 30, 2009 at 10:35 PM
I think censorship has benefitted every single one of us at different points in our lives. Although censorship to us may not be necessary, it is essential for those who are easily misled and influenced by other people’s views. In stable and uncorrupt governments, the main aim of censorship would be to protect the people. In corrupted ones, however, the same cannot be said. Their agenda would probably be to shape the people’s views and promote their ideals. So, I believe in Singapore, censorship can be trusted. Now I know some will argue over this, but hey, all of us are actually aware of the existence of censorship in Singapore! If we really deem the news coverage, movie content etc. to be inadequate, we will know how to find alternative sources to provide us with a more complete and uncensored view. We will be wise enough to filter out what we consider as censored. Instead of criticizing censorship and what it does, let’s instead take a look at the ‘why’ part. As mentioned earlier, censorship exists to protect the people, those who are easily misled and influenced. Thus censorship is used on the ENTIRE population for their benefit. It is up to the ‘wiser’ ones, like some of you, to filter out the inconsistencies and inaccuracies in reporting and search for more information. =)
\FrEdErIcK/ Said:
on November 1, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Hey again! The ERP video was so funny. Another one of the many spin-offs from the original video. =))
Great discussion about the topic of censorship. There are various rationales for censorship. Namely they are: Moral censorship, military censorship, political censorship, and also religious censorship. They all work in their uniquely different ways. But they have a common purpose and goal in mind: to protect themselves against those who may object or harm them, in turn causing great inconvenience.
Internet censorship is the most common and most recent form of censorship right now. However, even so, the total censorship of the internet is almost impossible, mainly due to the underlying distributed technology of the Internet.
You focused on moral censorship, i presume. =) Hence, linking to the censorship of the internet, i can only say that it is up to the individual responsibilty of oneself to protect themselves against the undesirable aspects of the internet.
♥ junying Said:
on November 5, 2009 at 9:26 AM
I feel that sometimes there is a need for censorship in order to protect us from certain information. Most of the time, government bodies choose to censor certain information that they deem as inappropriate, most of time if the information may be harmful to these positions in the government bodies. Additionally, most of the times censorship is done to protect our younger generations. Remember the Saving Gaia advertisement shown last year. (Video link below)
The video was criticized to due the lifelikeness of the door to a real child and the violent and bloody image of the bleeding doll which was later cut into half. Eventually there was a presentation of a real child, which critics comment that if may taint a young child’s mind and children may not be able to differentiate the doll from a real child.
This advertisement was first shifted from a daytime slot to be only restricted to be shown after 10 at night. Eventually the whole advertisement was removed. Even though the advertisement effective brings out the strong message of saving the world, the safety of our future generation is far more important and hence the need for censorship.
commmediadiscourse Said:
on November 7, 2009 at 9:30 PM
I believe that censorship is for the good of the citizens.
Censorship has always been a rather touchy issue in Singapore. Some blame it on censorship as that which impeded the creativity and whether singaporean films are being brought international. I would say not. In fact, there are some things which are not in black and white by the Media Development Authority(MDA). However, the film-makers and tv producers, even news producers practise self censorship. I think in a way it is good because it will prevent a news station from becoming too subjective.
=) Kai Ting
Sally Said:
on November 7, 2009 at 9:57 PM
Censorship is a very sensitive topic as it can offend people either way. The arguments of both for and against us just as strong but I prefer to stand on the side of believing in censorship.
A certain amount of censorship is needed even for the most democratic society. Without regulations, anyone can do anything and extreme acts may detstblise our fundamental morality and our society’s belief. Hence, cetain measures are still required.
benn Said:
on November 7, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Haha. “A” is so aggressive. It is really hard to decide if censorship is good or bad. As different people have different stands on whether a particular piece of information is acceptable or otherwise, it is possible that valuable information may be lost due to censorship. In this day and age, practically any kind of information can be found on the web. It really doesnt make sense to put so much effort into censorship. Rather, we can work on educating the public. let the people practice proper self censorship.
Aiming Said:
on November 8, 2009 at 1:21 AM
Hey Chu Yuan! (:
I was very enlightened by something my friend told me. It’s that actually, the powerful effect theory still resides in today’s society. However much we try to resist the media, and stop it from influencing us, the very act of blocking it out is evidence of it’s influence on us already.
What do you think? (:
Rachel Lim Said:
on November 8, 2009 at 8:01 PM
Hey there!
I agree that certain censorships should be in place especially for things that are related to race and religion. But censoring other things would only be in the government’s favor. I think this actually limits our individualism as anything we want to express is silenced.
Justin Said:
on November 8, 2009 at 10:59 PM
what i believe about censorship is that it should be up to a person and not the government to decide. we are grown ups and we have to know whats good or bad for us.
the thing is if there were no censorship, the younger generation would be able to access these media easily. hence we must educate the young and teach whats right and whats wrong for themselves.
i personally feel there should be little or no censorship, it will only make us grow and not rely on the government and decide whats right or wrong for us.