Film Rating of "Sex.Violence.FamilyValues"

Mr David Ong asked the Minister for Communications and Information if he can provide more insight into MDA's reversal of an initial M18 rating for the local film "Sex.Violence.FamilyValues" to a rating of Not Allowed For All Rating.

Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Communications and Information how the Board of Film Censors and Films Consultative Panel reconcile any differences in their respective film classifications.

Page: 1055

Thank you. Sir, in December last year, the Media Development Authority (MDA) classified Porn Masala, one of the three films in "Sex.Violence.FamilyValues", Mature 18 (M18) as MDA assessed that it was a satire on racial ignorance and stereotyping. The rating was accompanied by a consumer advice for coarse language and racial stereotyping to enable viewers to make an informed choice.

In late September this year, MDA decided to consult the Films Consultative Panel (FCP) after receiving strong public feedback about the use of racist language in an online trailer for the film.

Significantly, MDA's consultation of the FCP for its views represents part of the robust process of film classification that MDA has put in place. As hon Members would know, the FCP comprises members of the public, representing different age groups, races, religions and professions, including those with knowledge about the film industry.

Twenty-four FCP members viewed the film in its entirety. Twenty of them felt that while the film may be a satire, there were specific comments which were offensive and demeaning to Indians, to the extent that the film should not be given a rating. Only four members felt that the film could be allowed under an R21 rating. None of them agreed with MDA's initial M18 rating. In view of the recommendation by an overwhelming majority to disallow the film for all ratings, MDA decided to revoke the M18 classification and classify it as Not Allowed for all Ratings (NAR).

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me explain the circumstances in which MDA would consult the FCP. MDA classifies more than 13,000 titles a year. So, it is not possible to consult the FCP for all these films. Thus, MDA will generally consult the panel in two instances: Firstly, when it encounters titles which may be potentially contentious and insights into community sentiments would help in arriving at an appropriate classification. Secondly, when there are complaints received about previously classified films.

In classifying films, MDA seeks to reflect prevailing community standards. This means that neither does it attempt to push the boundaries beyond what the community is prepared to accept nor does it seek to defend a status quo when the community has moved past it. As stated in MDA's Forum page letter published in The Straits Times on 19 October, it would not be right for MDA to ignore the FCP when all members who watched the film disagreed with MDA's M18 classification and an overwhelming majority voted to disallow the film.

Page: 1056

Sir, I would like to assure the House that this is an isolated case. In practice, the FCP has not, after reviewing cases referred to it, reached fundamentally different conclusions from MDA. The MDA will continue to evaluate the treatment of theme, content and context when classifying films, and this includes recognising that satire and parody should not be interpreted literally.

In classifying films, the MDA has a delicate task of balancing the interests of different segments of society who hold diverse and opposing views. Every additional step of review, such as a limited screening proposed by Ms Koh, merely prolongs the classification process and will create even more uncertainty. I am sure that in this particular case, had the FCP agreed with MDA's M18 classification, the filmmaker would not have welcomed a request by the complainants to allow only a limited screening. If, during such a limited screening, the audience was offended by the film, and MDA then acted against the FCP's opinion to change the classification, I am sure the filmmaker would object most strenuously.

Sir, in any case, MDA's classification decision is not final. The film distributor is entitled to appeal to the Films Appeal Committee, whose decision is final.

I thank the Minister. I have two supplementary questions. The first is regarding industry engagement. I believe in its response to the 2010 Censorship Review Committee's recommendations, MICA agreed that regulatory processes should involve industry and community engagement. In this regard, the Ministry agreed that industry practitioners, and I quote, "should be allowed to make formal representations to the Advisory Committee to facilitate dialogue". In view of this, was the filmmaker allowed to make a representation to defend his film to the Film Consultative Panel before the NAR rating was given and, if not, why not? And knowing that the panel was being convened so close to the theatrical release date, why wait for this engagement to happen at the Appeals stage, under the intense glare of the media spotlight and public pressure?

My second supplementary question is regarding enlarging the common space. The MDA, in giving the M18 rating, obviously recognised that the film was a satire on racial ignorance and stereotyping. In fact, the Vice-Chair of the FCP stated that the panel is aware of artistic elements, such as satire, and that this decision might be reversed when society has matured. Now, this is not a black-and-white situation, the trailer might be provocative but the film was never intended to be racist. In fact, the film points out that the root of our racist views is ignorance, and exposes our prejudices. Does the Minister agree that by blocking this film, we have actually denied Singaporeans a chance to dialogue on this issue and to grow and mature as a society; and that by blocking this film, we encourage Singaporeans to take sides on an issue portrayed in a film that no one can watch and are, in fact, shrinking that common space and not enlarging it?

Page: 1057

Sir, on the second question as to whether we have reduced the common space, the answer is, no, because film is not only the platform for which we can dialogue such issues. In fact, the Singapore Conversation conducted by Mr Heng Swee Keat is another platform for us to discuss some of the sensitive issues. That is why I do not see this as a step backward. But as I mentioned in my reply, there is a process, the process has proven over time to be effective. So, it is not the end. The filmmaker can still submit an appeal and I understand he has done so. So, we have to wait for the Film Appeal Panel to basically decide on a decision.

On the first question as to whether or not he was given an opportunity, that is the prerogative of the FCP. Really, the process is for the FCP to decide. The reason why this was revealed so late and so close to the screening was because of the two complaints that we received. As the Member has heard in my reply, MDA declared it to be M18 because we deemed it to be acceptable for certain type of audience. But because we received two strong complaints, in fact, a very long complaint by one particular member of the community, we decided to convene the FCP because we think that is how the process should work. It is really up to the filmmaker, as I mentioned earlier, to submit his appeal and we will have to wait and see the decision of the Appeal Panel.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister, given that the vast majority of the FCP had reservations about the film, why was MDA's initial assessment so different by giving it a M18 rating while they could also give a R21 rating. Secondly, has there been a substantial change between what was submitted earlier to MDA and the final production? And, thirdly, I would like the Minister to address my parliamentary question about the standard procedure for films' final classification when there is a difference between the Board of Films Censors and the Films Consultative Panel's assessment. And is the final classification automatically based on the more conservative assessment?

On the Member's final question, the answer is no. At the end of the day, the BFC has the final say on what is the classification to be used, if there is a disagreement, which I mentioned in my reply. Fundamentally, if there are no major agreements, the BFC would have to take into account the views of the FCP. In this particular instance, as I mentioned in my reply, 20 out of 24 disagreed entirely. So, it would be very unwise for us to ignore that particular response from a very diverse group of people. Out of the 20 and 24, in fact, the composition was very, very diverse because we have people from different backgrounds, different races and different professions.

As to his first question, yes, we viewed the film entirely. In fact, there are three films as part of the whole package. We viewed them in entirety last December. Based on what we felt was a prevailing norm and looking at the film the way it was presented, we thought that M18 would be a justified classification. As mentioned in the earlier question by Ms Koh, we did not see any reason to change until we receive those complaints. So the FCP therefore allowed us a second check in case there was some feedback from the members of the community. In this particular instance, we have to convene the FCP because there were complaints and therefore we have to take the FCP's comments into account.

Page: 1058

I thank the Minister for the clarification. The change in classification after a film is produced may send a very negative message to budding and potential filmmakers. I just want to ask the Ministry to shed some light on similar cases where such classification had been changed or reversed. And is there a lack of engagement or perhaps the clarity of MDA's decision-making process to these filmmakers?

I think the second part about engagement is a very good point. I do know that there have been many industry consultations done by members of the BFC. But, ultimately, as I mentioned in my reply, they have to screen over 13,000 titles and therefore it is very difficult for them to go out to the public to get responses every now and then. I do not think this sends a negative message because the number of instances in which we have to change the classification is few and far between. In fact, my record shows in 2010 and 2011, there were no such instances. This year alone, we only have two, of course, the film in question and there was another earlier film which was basically an imported film. So, by and large, we are quite satisfied with the classification process and the way in which we have engaged the filmmakers. But I take the Member's point that as society evolves, we have to continue to relook at our processes and how we can engage a wider cross section of the community so that we can get a better sensing. But, finally, I think we must all agree that when a classification is made, there will be some people who disagree and there will be some people who agree. The job of the MDA and the BFC is really to find that common ground which is as large as possible for us to allow the film to be screened, because we do want to support the film industry in Singapore.

Page: 1058