Explanation for Classification of Documentary Film "To Singapore, With Love"

Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether MDA has engaged the director of the documentary "To Singapore, With Love" before deciding on an NAR classification; (b) what is the process to explain the rationale for a particular classification to the director; and (c) whether a discussion can take place between MDA and the director to reach a compromise before the film is given an NAR classification.

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what was the due process undertaken to ascertain that the documentary "To Singapore, With Love" undermined national security; (b) whether the documentary can be reclassified for highly restricted viewing since "screenings to one's own family members or personal friends" is permissible by MDA, publications by political exiles are available in the public domain and public talks by ex-MCP members have been allowed before; and (c) what are the Ministry's OB markers for film productions containing alternative narratives about Singapore's history.

Madam, the film "To Singapore, With Love" must be considered in a historical context. From 1948 onwards, over four decades, the Communist

Page: 25

Party of Malaya (CPM) waged a determined campaign using violence and subversion to install a communist regime in Malaysia and Singapore. Over 8,000 civilians and security personnel were killed or wounded during the insurgency. Communist hit squads assassinated Singaporeans in broad daylight. The CPM also used Communist United Front tactics to infiltrate and take control of open organisations like student bodies, labour unions, political parties and cultural organisations. They used these organisations to foment demonstrations, strikes and riots. They sought to destabilise the country and establish a communist state through illegal means.

This struggle with the communists finally ended only in December 1989, when the CPM signed the Peace Agreements with the Thai and Malaysian authorities in Haadyai and laid down arms. That the CPM ultimately failed was in large measure due to the determination and courage of a generation of stalwarts who put their lives on the line to fight for a non-communist, democratic Malaysia and Singapore. Today, Singaporeans enjoy the peace and progress which that generation secured with their lives.

The CPM's aims, its violent means and its organisation and membership are well-established historical facts and have been written about extensively. The film "To Singapore, With Love" contains untruths and deception about this history. Therefore, it received an appropriate classification which disallowed it for public viewing. Let me elaborate.

The film allowed some CPM members and their Communist United Front sympathisers to whitewash their past actions by re-casting them as the expression of a peaceful and democratic difference of ideology and views. They also purveyed the false impression that the Singapore Government had prevented them from returning to Singapore. In fact, these individuals had been involved in violent and subversive actions to advance the CPM's agenda and had posed a serious threat to the security of Singapore and the safety of Singaporeans. They chose to leave Singapore to avoid being held accountable for their actions.

This life and death struggle with the communists may be a distant memory for many people today. But that does not mean that the individuals who supported and participated in the armed insurrection to overthrow the lawfully elected Government and establish a communist regime and who continue to refuse to renounce violence to this day, should be allowed to absolve themselves without accounting for their past actions and renouncing violence.

Unlike those featured in the film, many former CPM members did return to Singapore by acknowledging and accounting for their past actions. They include former CPM comrades and superiors of those featured in the film. For example, two senior CPM members, Eu Chooi Yip and PV Sarma, returned to Singapore in 1991, together with their family members, some of whom had also worked for the CPM. Eu and Sarma had respectively headed the Chinese

Page: 26

and English sections of the CPM's China-based propaganda radio station, the Voice of Malayan Revolution (VMR). Eu was also a member of the CPM Central Committee and was ranked higher than all the CPM members featured in the film.

The fact that such senior CPM cadres could have returned to and successfully resettled in Singapore with their families shows how the Government has accommodated those who intended to do us harm, but subsequently renounced their past actions. It also shows that it is completely possible for former CPM members to return if they sincerely wish to do so.

Two CPM members featured in the film, Chan Sun Wing and He Jin also known as Lim Kim Chuan, had in fact served under Eu Chooi Yip in the VMR. The VMR was the main source of ideological instruction for members of the CPM and its satellite organisations in Malaysia and Singapore. In the film, He Jin deflected questions about the communists using violence against Singapore; instead he spoke of the CPM's involvement in fighting the Japanese during World War II. His wife, Shu Shihua also known as Su Si Haw, who was also featured in the film, was like him, a member of the CPM. Both of them joined the CPM guerrilla base at the Thai-Malaysia border. Another CPM member of the film, Wong Soon Fong, fled Singapore in 1963 to avoid arrest and later joined the guerrilla base at the Thai-Malaysia border. Two more CPM members featured in the film – Tan Hee Kim and his wife Yap Wan Ping – claimed that they had only joined the CPM after they decided to leave Singapore, when in reality they were already active CPM members before they left. Altogether, six individuals in the film had been or were still with the CPM village at the Thai-Malaysia border.

Two others in the film conveniently omitted mentioning the criminal offences which they remain liable for. Ho Juan Thai had admitted in an open letter in 1982 that he had amended the expiry date of his Singapore passport; he had also committed Exit Permit offences when he left Singapore illegally. Nevertheless, the Government has offered him a Document of Identity on at least three occasions to return to Singapore, but he chose not to do so. Tan Wah Piow left Singapore through illegal channels to evade NS enlistment and travelled to the UK on his expired passport with a forged extension endorsement. Both Ho and Tan can return to Singapore although they cannot expect to be granted immunity if they are found to have flouted the law. Members will agree that nobody can expect to be placed above the law.

The film's one-sided portrayals are designed to evoke feelings of sympathy and support for individuals who in reality chose to leave Singapore and remain in self-exile and who have not accounted for their past actions squarely. It is not a historical documentary presenting a factual account of what happened. It gives a misleading account of these individuals' past and makes no attempt to present an objective account of the violent Communist insurrection that they had participated in and have not renounced. To allow public screening of a film that obfuscates and whitewashes an armed insurrection by an illegal organisation,

Page: 27

and violent and subversive acts directed at Singaporeans, would effectively mean condoning the use of violence and subversion in Singapore and thus harm our national security.

It would also be a gross injustice to the men and women who braved violence and intimidation to stand up to the Communists, especially those who lost their lives in the fight to preserve Singapore's security and stability and secure a democratic, non-Communist Singapore.

Madam, the MDA receives about 10,000 film titles for classification each year and reviews them based on the Films Classification Guidelines, which were developed in consultation with the industry and the community. We do not have specific guidelines on films that deal with historical content, nor do we intend to develop them. The Film Classification Guidelines already state, and I quote, "in exceptional cases, a film may not be allowed for all ratings (NAR) when the content of the film undermines national interest" and that "films deemed to undermine public order, national security and/or stability will be disallowed for all ratings". The guidelines continue to be the yardstick by which the MDA will evaluate films.

Classification aside, given the reach and impact of the film medium, the Government will clearly challenge and refute attempts by individuals who have broken the law or performed acts which posed a threat to Singapore, like acts of violence or terrorism, but who deny in the film that they had done so. We will do the same when individuals perpetuate falsehoods to attack the legitimacy of the security actions that were taken against them in the course of protecting Singaporeans. Not to take any action against films which contain distorted and untruthful accounts would give the wrong impression that there is truth to their claims and that the Government's actions against these individuals were unwarranted. This has serious implications because it would erode public confidence in the Government on security matters even as we deal with current threats like jihadi terrorism.

Ms Kuik asked if the film could be reclassified for highly restricted viewing since "screenings to one's own family members or personal friends" is permissible, publications by political exiles are available in the public domain and public talks by ex-CPM members have been allowed before.

Films and print publications have always been governed differently under different legislation. This is because of the difference in the nature and reach of the two mediums, as well as their impact on audiences. A film can more easily arouse emotive responses and is more likely to reach a wider audience than a book.

Page: 28

The NAR classification does not prohibit the private screening of a film. Whether a screening is private or not will depend on several factors, including how the screening is planned and conducted, as well as who attends the screening. Tertiary institutions can also request for approval to screen NAR-classified films to students of media or related courses for educational purposes, subject of course to the consent of the filmmaker. In fact, MDA had recently agreed to a request from Yale-NUS College to screen "To Singapore, With Love" in a course on documentaries about conflicts. In an academic setting, there are avenues for different views to be heard or presented, and we trust that tertiary institutions will present an objective and balanced account of events to be examined critically by students.

Mr Baey asked if MDA had engaged the director to explain the rationale behind the NAR decision and if a discussion can take place between MDA and the director to reach a compromise for the rating. Madam, as part of MDA's standard process when a film is disallowed, MDA will explain the rationale for the decision to the applicant. In the case of "To Singapore, With Love", MDA had indeed engaged the NUS Museum, which had submitted the film for classification. MDA does meet with filmmakers who want to understand more about classifications while they are developing their films, or the rationale for a classification after a film has been classified. It is then up to the filmmaker to decide whether he or she wants to re-work or edit the film and, if so, submit a fresh application to MDA for classification.

Mr Zaqy Mohammad asked if there are plans to improve public awareness of the events and other controversial issues depicted in the film and if MDA plans to produce a documentary depicting its own version of the events for public education. MDA supports the production of TV programmes or films that explore our history. One recent example is the Channel NewsAsia documentary series, "Days of Rage", which was supported by the Public Service Broadcast funds from MDA. The documentary presented viewers with a good account of tumultuous events, such as the 1964 Race Riots, the Hock Lee Bus Riots, and the Konfrontasi threat which led to the bombing of the MacDonald House in 1965. MDA will support documentaries that provide an insight into Singapore's past, so long as the content does not breach the Films Classification Guidelines.

I would like to ask the Minister this. I noted that this application was made by the NUS Museum, not by the film maker. Given that this film was given the NAR classification, which is supposed to be the most extreme level of classification, would MDA not think that it is necessary to engage the film maker, maybe to understand how or why she made this film – the treatment, story angle and to have a level of engagement with the content creator and also to explain, perhaps, the MDA's rationale for giving such a classification, that perhaps a compromise can be made?

Page: 29

In general, when films are submitted for festivals, if the film maker is a local film maker, would MDA not be able to reach out to these film makers because of proximity, since the film makers are in Singapore versus overseas foreign film makers and, therefore, concerns could be addressed in time?

The last question is – would then, the film maker, Ms Tan Pin Pin, be suspected or accused of white-washing crimes of certain people and, therefore, be liable for prosecution as well?

The answer to the second question is not. This is a film that she has submitted, or at least, in this case, the NUS Museum has submitted and we have classified as NAR. By the way, NAR is not the most extreme classification. The most extreme is prohibition under section 35 of the Film's Act. The question of engagement is something in which we are well aware of and we engage film makers, as mentioned in my reply, at any point during the production of the film. Really, it is the prerogative of the film maker to consult MDA because the classification guidelines are all in place. As I have mentioned in my reply, we receive 10,000 titles every year and it is not possible for MDA to consult every one of them. But certainly, I think, if the film maker is keen to know why such an outcome was given for his or her film, they could easily contact MDA and they have done so in the past, where they had a discussion and we explained.

It is not the role of MDA to tell them how to re-edit the film to meet our classification guidelines, but, on our part, we explain to them where we find that the film has some problems. Because I think the process is transparent and we engage them as and when we think it is necessary and, on their part, if they want to see the film being broadcast or being screened publicly, they should do so earlier on. So, in this case, the museum did not, but we did inform them why is it that we have to give them this classification and if Ms Tan Pin Pin would like to have a discussion with MDA – in fact, she has asked for it and we have met her and we have explained – we will be happy to do so, not only for her, but for other film makers.

The Member's question about festivals – I agree with him that we should try and work together with film makers but it would be up to the local film makers to recognise that we do have classification guidelines. If they feel that they are uncertain about whether or not the film that they are about to put up will meet our classification guidelines, they can meet MDA officials at any time to discuss this.

My question is, this is more a clarification: the exceptions that MDA had made for the screening to be done at Universities, is this a standing exception or is this decided on a case-by-case basis for different types of films?

Page: 30

Let me explain what NAR is all about. NAR means you cannot arrange for public screening. You can have possession of it and that is why after we have classified the film, we returned it to NUS Museum. We say that it is available for private screening. We do make exceptions for educational institutions because we recognise that in such a setting, there is an opportunity for discussion to take place and it is for the purpose of education. In the case that I have mentioned about Yale-NUS, it is about discussion on conflicts. Certainly for NAR, we have allowed this in the past, and we will continue to do so, but we also need to make sure that whoever wants to do so, submits a request. As I have mentioned in my reply, we have to understand the setting and we have to understand who is being invited for the discussion. There are certain conditions. But by and large, it should not be a problem for us.