Public Entertainments and Meetings (Amendment) Bill

Mdm Speaker, thank you so much for allowing me to speak on this pertinent Bill that has received a lot of attention by the arts and entertainment sectors as well as by the media, with the amendments that it had included as well as those that it had intended to include but left out following public consultation. This is the first time I am actually speaking on a Bill where the bulk of the topics or things that were not inside, but because these were included, if I may call it, in during consultation, but excluded after it.

The key amendments in this Bill will improve the administration of the arts and public entertainment scene in Singapore. These amendments also make the regulatory powers clearer between the agencies, updating the context of the Act to today's media convergence. This will undoubtedly provide better clarity to the arts and entertainment industry.

The Bill allows for a provision of clearer delineation of the public entertainment licensed by the SPF and the arts entertainment licensed by MDA, and the classification of the arts entertainment, independent of the licence being issued. Through a clearer delineation of definitions and licensing regimes between the two agencies, the public will get greater clarity on these regimes.

Moreover, since there is a possibility that an arts entertainment event can be held under a Public Entertainment licence, the proposed delineation will also help MDA to better define and classify the type of performance that should be an arts entertainment event.

The Bill allows for an update of the definition of arts entertainment to include virtual forms transmitted in real-time to a venue for public exhibition. This is important because technology today allows for media convergence, which means that an arts entertainment

Page: 65

event staged overseas can now be transmitted "live" or in real-time to an audience in Singapore. Recognising this "virtual" arts entertainment event, the amendments were proposed to cater to its public exhibition and to apply the same regulatory principle vis a vis an arts event physically staged here in Singapore.

The Bill also brings about administrative enhancements to PEMA, which is timely because the last amendment to it was 14 years ago. Some of these amendments that this Bill proposes will enable MDA to perform its regulatory functions, as the Minister had explained earlier, more effectively today, such as in the areas of investigation powers, disposal powers and composition of offences.

However, what is also interesting about this Bill is what it intended to cover but did not. I believe it is important to cover the aspects of what did not happen, for the consideration of future amendments. I am also heartened that MDA took discussions with the arts community beyond the public consultation paper with two meetings and one town hall session. Following these sessions, MDA decided that the time was not right to implement term licensing and made the call to withdraw term licensing in view that there needs to be greater alignment between the regulator and the arts community for co-regulation to be effective.

Perhaps, more time was needed for the arts and other communities to understand the proposed scheme, and even pilot term licensing, before it becomes part of PEMA.

Following the Censorship Review Committee (CRC) recommendations in 2003 – and this was further re-affirmed in 2010 – there was some push for MDA and the arts community to embark on a co-regulation effort for the arts scene, in the hope of creating greater vibrancy. The recommendation was to move the arts groups from an event-based licensing scheme to one that would be period-based, thereby allowing the staging of multiple events within the valid period of the licence.

As PEMA defines arts entertainment more broadly to cover events beyond those by the arts groups, the proposal for term licensing was, likewise, extended to the entire pool of arts events organisers.

My parliamentary colleague Mr Baey Yam Keng and I met former Nominated Member of Parliament Janice Koh and Arts Engage, both of whom had submitted papers to the public consultation exercise, to listen to and understand the concerns of the arts community.

The following are some areas that the arts community was concerned with; (a) disagreement over the intent of the Term Licensing Scheme; (b) Arts Engage was of the view

Page: 66

that the proposed Term Licensing Scheme would see artists functioning as extensions of MDA, resulting in self-censorship; (c) concerns over misclassification, the penalty system and appeal processes; and (d) concerns over content classification guidelines for the arts. The same points were also outlined in MDA's closing notes for the public consultation paper.

Arts Engage, which represents the arts community, expressed concerns over the fines and penalties which could result from wrongly implementing the arts classification guidelines. Arts Engage also highlighted the subjective and arbitrary nature of classifying arts content, citing instances when the same content was potentially viewed and rated differently between the arts group and MDA. Hence, doubts were raised over any basis for holding individuals accountable for misclassifications.

Though many understand that penalties are in place to prevent abuse, however, as the arts are subjective, arts groups find it hard to accept penalties for misclassification, especially for an area open to interpretation. This, they felt could lead to self-censorship and not fulfil the full objectives of co-classification even though the intent of the penalties, as MDA has mentioned, are due to intentional misclassification and not unintentional ones.

In addition, arts groups also raised concerns that the creation of the role of Content Assessor would place them at odds with others in the same arts group or even with the wider artistic community, or perhaps even with oneself if he is an artist. Based on MDA's closing note, Arts Engage further explained that they had found no willing candidates whom they could appoint as a Content Assessor.

More fundamentally, they viewed that the arts group should be more accountable for creative decisions as a collective, rather than for the accountability to be rested on one person identified as the Content Assessor.

Given that this concept is new to both the arts community and MDA, I would recommend that MDA pilot this in the meantime with some key groups to see how it works and if the role can be accepted by the arts groups over time, as we explore how to make this role more meaningful, and whether accountability could be shared as a group.

Madam, the Not Allowed for All Ratings (NAR) classification seems to be a point of contention with many arts groups seeking that NAR be lifted but that arts content should only be classified and not banned. However, given that we have just done a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on NAR yesterday, I understand MDA and the Censorship Review Committee's (CRC's) recommendations to retain NAR, given the various circumstances that we have to protect, such as the racial and religious harmony of Singapore, national security and so forth.

Page: 67

With the recent NAR rating to Tan Pin Pin's film, "To Singapore, with Love", I understand if the State is concerned with such movies that depict an alternative history to Singapore, and as the Minister had responded to a PQ yesterday, allowing the exiles to feature their own version of the story disrespects the many Singaporeans who fought the armed struggle against the Communists in our early years of pre- and post-Independence. While this example relates to a film, and not an arts performance, the application of NAR has the same objectives.

I have only managed to watch parts of the film, whatever is available online. While the accounts seem one-sided from the perspectives of the exiles, one may also argue that the communist ideology that they expound is no longer relevant and current in the modern-day Singapore context.

We should make the NAR classification of any works more transparent and the framework more robust. The product today can be viewed just across the border and this has been done in Johor Bahru, and alternative means of accessibility today, for example, the Internet, as I have done, is much easier. Moreover, making works classified NAR may also bring more attention to them.

In the context of PEMA, certainly, the reach for arts performances is not as wide compared to films. Between 2007 and 2013, there were only three arts and entertainment events or performances which were disallowed.

While the NAR classification is in place as safeguards, the robustness and transparency of its use have to be in place to reassure the public of its continued need to ensure national security and racial and religious harmony here in Singapore, and that the NAR classification is not used unless there is a clear threat to our security and value system.

MDA, as the regulator, however, also has the role of gatekeeper for the wider public, many of whom expect MDA to continue to set the standards. Today, parents want to have a greater say over what their children watch or do not watch. While some are open for their children to be more exposed, the reality is that many other parents also expect the regulator to provide the guidance so that they can be guided on what their children can watch or should watch.

A recent poll by Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH) stated that quite a majority, at 60%, were satisfied with current standards. However, 7% felt that they were somewhat relaxed, 2% felt they were too relaxed. Only 4% of respondents felt that today's content regulations were too restrictive, with about 19% feeling that the regulations were somewhat restrictive. So, you have about 23% feeling that the regulations were

Page: 68

restrictive or too restrictive. As a society, we have to be aware that there is a spectrum of views on how we calibrate our classifications and MDA needs to continually adjust the "norms" if this shifts over time.

However, in the spirit of co-regulation, there is also a need for the community to differentiate between term licensing, which is largely an administrative process, and classification. Nonetheless, the classification ratings are an ongoing dialogue that will evolve with time and our accepted value systems in Singapore. I encourage MDA to continue this dialogue to represent the different segments of society.

Madam, I applaud MDA for taking into account the feedback from the arts community and deciding not to proceed with the term licensing scheme until we are more aligned on what needs to be done for co-regulation to exist. While this was a much awaited feature of PEMA, there was a realisation that it would be a win-win for both the regulator and the arts community to first come to a consensus on what would work best for Singapore.

Madam, in closing, I support the objectives of the Bill in providing greater clarity in the roles of the various agencies and in regulating licensing, and updating the regulations in cognisance of media convergence, as well as enabling MDA to perform its regulatory functions more effectively. Madam, I rise in support of the Bill.

Madam, I would like to thank Mr Zaqy Mohamad for his support of the amendment Bill and his acknowledgement of MDA's efforts in engaging the arts community. I would like to assure him and Members of the House that MDA will continue with its outreach efforts to the arts community to understand better their concerns and how best we can create a larger middle ground.

Let me address his concerns on the Term Licensing Scheme. Madam, introducing the Term Licensing Scheme for arts groups was first recommended by the Censorship Review Committee in 2003 and reaffirmed by another Censorship Review Committee in 2010.

The scheme would move arts groups from an event-based licensing system to one that would be period-based, thereby allowing the staging of multiple events within the validity period of the licence. This will potentially ease the administrative burden of the arts group on the scheme and provide them with cost and time savings. Participation would be on a

Page: 69

voluntary basis. It will be offered as an additional option, on top of the current system.

Since early 2013, MDA has been extensively consulting with the arts groups, event organisers and other stakeholders on the Term Licensing Scheme and the Arts Entertainment Classification Code to seek their feedback. One group which MDA spent a substantial amount of time with, as mentioned by Mr Zaqy, was Arts Engage, which represented 45 arts groups. Even after the public consultation on the Bill had closed in May this year, MDA continued to engage Arts Engage to explore if their concerns can be addressed. The details of these discussions can be found in the PEMA public consultation closing note which MDA issued on 22 August 2014.

To summarise, the arts groups' notion of co-regulation included: (a) they should be given greater autonomy and flexibility in the determination and the application of the Arts Entertainment Classification Code; (b) any content should be allowed at the highest rating of Restricted 18 or R(18) and there should be no NAR category; and (c) regardless of the nature of the breach or the classification code, no penalties should be imposed except for revocation of the term licence.

We must also give due consideration to the other responses received by MDA during the public consultation. For example, there were concerns that introducing the Term Licensing Scheme would result in a liberalisation of content standards. Others felt that a robust balancing scheme was needed to deter intentional misclassification.

As regulators of arts entertainment, MDA has to weigh the interests and concerns of both the arts groups and the general public. Public consultation must be in good faith and in the spirit of give and take. The arts community cannot expect MDA to only accommodate their concerns because the Arts Entertainment Classification Code is one in which all Singaporeans, you and me, have an interest in.

The current classification code was developed after input was sought from arts groups and through one-on-one dialogues with 44 arts entertainment licensees between April and June 2013. MDA also consulted its community-based Arts Consultation Panel. Underpinning the Classification Code are our community norms and values and the underlying importance of maintaining social, racial and religious harmony. An NAR category is necessary as an upper limit, as there will be instances when a performance is deemed inappropriate for staging. For example, we certainly will not condone religious icons being desecrated in a performance just because the performer deems it to be artistic.

This was also the perspective of the Censorship Review Committee in 2010 which explicitly stated that it did not agree with the position that, at the highest rating, any form

Page: 70

of content should be allowed. In recommending a Term Licensing Scheme for the arts groups, the Committee also included that it should be, and I quote, "a co-regulatory scheme that allows arts groups to take over the responsibility of ensuring that they stayed within the clear guidelines set by MDA".

Mr Zaqy has urged the Ministry to continue its efforts to achieve co-regulation of arts entertainment. Madam, in principle, I agree with the hon Member that co-regulation is a target that we should work towards. Co-regulation is currently already practised for the broadcast sector – TV and radio, publications, video and video games – where content providers ensure that the contents which they offer are age appropriate and are in line with the content guidelines set by MDA.

In the case of the arts groups, however, the extensive and in-depth engagements which MDA has had with the arts groups have shown that co-regulation is not such a straightforward matter. MDA will continue its engagements with the arts groups and other relevant stakeholders. However, we have no plans to pursue co-regulation of arts entertainment for the foreseeable future. Until the fundamental differences of views on co-regulation between MDA and the arts groups can be narrowed, it will not be meaningful to implement any pilot tests for the Term Licensing or Content Assessors schemes.

*Question put, and agreed to.*

*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*