By Ariffin Sha
Editing and images by Howard Lee
Are we muzzled? Are we getting access to information? Can we cope with diversity of views? What is the role of public institutions like the National Library Board? Who are they supposed to serve and how? How do we ensure that our personal values also have a space in secular Singapore?
These were some of the questions that arose from the recent near-pulping of two library book titles that were deemed to contain “non-pro-family” content, which MARUAH, a human rights NGO in Singapore, attempted to answer by organising a forum last Sunday, titled “Pulp Friction: Our Right to Information and Right to Expression”.
MARUAH’s president, Ms Braema Mathi, indicated that the forum was meant to facilitate an open discussion on these issues. A panel comprising writers, a theatre practitioner, a researcher and a law academic gave an audience of about 100 a comprehensive take on the right to information and expression.
Diversity of voices and the contest of social space
Speakers noted that the lack of publicly available information on certain topics of discussion has led to a deliberate marginalisation of certain groups in society, which in turn creates an imbalance of power in how we navigate our social space.
“Heterosexuality is dominant in culture and mass media today, said writer Ms Teng Quan Xi. “Thus, even the kids of the parents who want their children to read “And Tango Makes Three” and the “White Swan Express” will be exposed to books, films and television shows featuring mainly, or only, heterosexual characters.”
Ms Teng also remarked that the ease and speed with which NLB was willing to pulp the books represents how disrespect for families that do not fall into the norm has been entrenched in NLB.
Ms June Yang, a writer and former journalist with Mediacorp, agreed. She suspected that groups like “We are against Pink Dot” were behind the call for NLB to withdraw the books and were also involved in an organised effort to support the ban in public space, such as the comments sections of online media.
he explained that these groups knew their strategies would work because the government and our society as a whole has been institutionally conditioned to exclude people who do not fall into the heterosexual family mold.
The normalisation of censorship and the suppression of information
The speakers were also worried about how the incident has effectively signalled that censorship has become a matter of course in Singapore, where people accept that censorship is permissible so long as they have been given certain privileges, rather than seek free expression as an entitlement.
“Because of the NLB saga, the phenomenon of censorship has finally been mainstream,” said Thirunalan Sasitharan, a veteran theatre practitioner. “The act of silencing, the act of oppressing a voice, has finally been spotlighted. What is critical about this incident is that it has become clear to everyone that it could happen to anyone. Anyone could be subjected to this vicious power-play, which is what censorship is. Let us never forget that.”
Mr Sasi defined censorship as the power of a person or a group or the privileged in society to silence others, to deface what other people think or say, to obliterate a point of view and to eradicate an opinion. “It is a brutal exercise of power,” he said, drawing from 30 years of experience in theatre.
Mr Sasi noted a trend in recent years where censorship is increasingly being viewed as a “victimless crime”, where many young artists who are working in theatre and film are sometimes growing up in a context where they don’t even know they are being censored.
Such a mindset is dangerous because “it is no longer the state, which is an external body, which is doing this censorship. It is the artist himself. They start to think that this is how it should be, this is right and therefore this is how I should do it.”
The fact that the government essentially controls all theatre venues is another cause for concern. “For many young artists, the mere act of being published or shown is sufficient grounds to comply with whatever the venue demands,” said Mr Sasi. “In order to show the work, to screen the film and to publish the book one is willing to make substantial artistic changes. Many of these artists don’t even realise that they are being censored and think that this is the normal procedure.”
“All of us here as citizens, not just as artists, have the constitutional right to express ourselves freely and without fear. And that is the position we have to take,” said Mr Sasi.
Mr Imran Taib, a researcher on international conflicts, believes that the suppression of information is can lead to the monopolisation of ideas in society, which his studies has shown to be a main factor of oppression in history.
Mr Taib cited the use of eugenics in the White Supremacy movement, and other cases where the deliberate denial of complete information was used as a basis of starting conflicts.
From these examples, he believed that restricting information by filtering what is desirable or undesirable by the people in power could be detrimental to society at large.
“Power as we know corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” said Mr Taib. “It is the gatekeeping that leads to the collapse of society. This lack of access to information, even with the noble intent of restricting information for the greater good, will also lead to good and desirable ideas from entering society.”
Mr Taib also reminded the audience that “when we deny the right of others to information, we will someday be denied that same rights.”
The solution to this, he said, was the development of a citizenry capable of critical thinking through education. “This can be done by encouraging students to identify problems in society by themselves and then solving it, instead of the government telling them what the problem is and they going to solve it. In other words, a problem-posing method instead of a problem solving one.”
Mr Taib also emphasised the need for a free and open press and for a Freedom of Information Act. The lack of transparency impedes research on issues and history, and has allowed the government to dismiss citizens on the basis that they do not know the whole story.
According to Mr Taib, promoting the right to information is the only way that we can grow and mature as society, cushion the impact of social change and minimise conflicts.
Role of public institutions
Members of the panel indicated that, at the initial stages of “Penguingate”, NLB lost an important opportunity to open conversations between diverse groups on the issue.
There was also a need to examine the constitutional rights granted to the government vis-à-vis those of citizens, which in the case of the NLB saga, was actually instrumental in providing too much leeway for NLB to act indiscriminately in removing books from its collection without consulting the public.
Mr Jack Lee, a law professor versed in constitutional law, indicated that various statutes, such as the National Library Board Act and the Undesirable Publications Act, provides broad-ranging powers to government agencies, without clear definition of terms like “public interest”.
This effectively allows government agencies like NLB and the Media Development Authority to define regulatory frameworks on their own, which are just as vaguely defined. In such instances, citizens who wish to challenge regulations, particularly through the legal system, would find it hard to do so.
Mr Lee suggested introducing a mechanism where citizens can raise objections to legislations without having to go through a court case. He also suggested that concerned citizens should request for their Members of Parliament to raise queries in Parliament about government legislation that they find problematic.
* * * * *
Members of the audience also interacted vigorously with the panel, asking if advances in technology would lead to the redundancy of censorship laws. Panelists were of the view that while online media remains important to social discourse, mainstream media remains important due to their wider readership, and hence ability to challenge social norms.
They also asked if it was possible for a concerted effort for civil rights groups to lobby the government, the way faith-based groups have done in the NLB saga. Panelists agreed that while presenting diversity to the government was important, an open debate between divergent groups, based on mutual respect, was equally important.
Ms Mathi closed the session by encouraging participants to “claim our citizenry and take action” instead of blaming the government and expecting legislation to change.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

刘程强跌倒头部受伤 阿裕尼集选区议员代行职务

根据新加坡工人党今日(3日)发布的文告,该党阿裕尼集选区议员刘程强,上月30日家中跌倒,头部受伤,目前仍在加护病房接受治疗和观察。 刘程强也是工人党前秘书长。 工人党文告提及刘程强意识清醒,家属希望大家给予私人空间,让刘程强可安心静养。 刘程强在选区里的职务,将暂时由该集选区其他议员代办,前非选区议员严燕松也会提供协助。

TOC/TRE: FACE-OFF

Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 Time: 8pm – 10pm Place: Sinema Old…

因逾六万元被扣押而激动 女子殴打调查员被判入狱

银行职员拒绝解冻逾六万元的提款,一女子忿而闯入银行办公室,骚扰并两度袭击银行职员,被控入狱三周。 在中国出生,却已成为我国公民的42岁被告杨曼英(Yang Manying译音),于上周五(12月27日)在法庭上面对审判。于本月早前审讯时,她被指控非法闯入大华银行(UOB)的职员办公室,并伤害了该银行的反欺诈调查员Desmond Goh,她都认罪。她有另外四项控状,尚在考量中。 据法庭文件显示,该调查员在调查一个大华银行商业账户中,总值6万7000元的可疑交易时,和被告接触。 有关于2007年开设的账户属一家诊所,虽然文件没有注明诊所持有者,但是根据会计与企业管理局(ACRA)的网上搜寻,了解到该诊所属被告所有。 大华银行起疑扣押被告户头 被告辩护律师周五在庭上指出,被告负责接管其丈夫闲置的该诊所,此前已经和大华银行达成了商户协议。 法庭文件显示,调查员在调查该商业账户时发现,该账户已经被用于收取按摩设施的销售受益。鉴于有关的交易都在不正常的晚间时段进行,因此大华银行质疑,有关交易款项或涉及非法活动,扣押了被告户头内的6万7000元。 银行此举激怒了被告,冲到调查员位于大巴窑的办公室内,与对方对质。 被告于去年9月26日骚扰大华银行的一名员工,只为了能够进入银行办公室的禁区内。在和调查员接触后,被告开始攻击前者,并引起骚动。 被告最终被送出银行,但是她不死心地在该区徘徊,并且在发现重新进入办公室的机会时,再次攻击调查员。…

11月多达八人职场意外丧命 人力部称将加强安全管制

本月有八人在职场上意外丧命,创下今年最高纪录,令人力部不敢怠慢,国家发展部兼人力部政务部长扎吉哈表示高度关注,吁加强高风险职场的管制。 人力部数据显示,自今年1月至9月,共有25名员工死于职场上。 扎吉哈周四(11月28日)在脸书上帖文表示,该部门非常关注每一宗职场死亡事故,正在进行调查。 “除了定期检查,我们还将在接下来的两个月内,对高风险行业职场进行400次的调查,以确保相关公司符合工作场所安全与卫生(Workplace Safety and Health)的风险应对。” 本月4日起,诺维娜一带发生工地高架塔式吊车倒塌事故,吊车支架扭曲变形,一名印度籍男子丧生,另一名35岁的男子受伤,被紧急送往陈笃生医院抢救。 11月22日,在盛港安谷路(Anchorvale Road)339号的一个建筑工地发生意外,导致一名37岁男子受伤后,送院不治。 同日,一名巴克路英华学校进行清理工作的孟加拉籍客工,遭到校舍墙壁倒塌打中,送院后伤重不治。 周二,一名员工自超过九米高,正在修理中的货仓内摔下重伤而亡。据工作场所安全与卫生委员会的事故报告指出,本月还有三人因摔伤丧命。…