Can we see the bigger picture?
By Charles Tan
The recent saga involving MANAZINE and Singapore’s media regulatory body, Media Development Authority (MDA) whereby the former is “told” to tone down its “homosexual” content resulted in the country’s only gay advocacy group, People Like Us (PLU) to release a public statement, denouncing the action as “deplorable” and “unnecessary”.
Not to rehash what PLU has said, MDA’s action is possibly a publicity attempt to win over the moral high ground and to reinforce the reputation of the squeaky clean pro straight family anti gay Singapore. After all, Straits Times follows up a few days later with pro straight family agenda splashing features and cover spreads on the hotly debated topic in Parliament – how do we make more babies.
The action of the regulatory board is also a knee jerk response towards recent events.
One of them involves PLU’s recent statement of plea to decriminalize consensual oral sex between members of the same sex. The other hotly debated topic is the legalizing of gay marriages in US.
By making Manazine its target of censorship within public’s sight, MDA effectively demonstrates its competence and power in monitoring and controlling the contents of local media; sending a clear signal to media houses that they should not overstep their line even when we are talking about opening up.
The close follow up to Manazine saga is the rejection of a permit for three public talks titled "Lovers' Lecture Series" organised by The Fun Stage. Public Entertainment Licensing Unit (PELU), which is concerned with issuing licences for public forums, cited the reason of “contrary to the public interest" on 3 March 2004 which provoked PLU to issue another statement to condemn their actions.
Despite seemingly positive signs of the nation opening up and becoming more tolerant towards controversial issues, the message sent to Singaporeans through the various regulatory board’s actions is clear.
Even when the tides are changing in US; when gays are allowed to hold sensitive governmental positions; gay foreigners are welcomed to work in our shores; gay themed plays and movies are staged; we are basically “conservative” and regards gay issues as too sensitive for discussion.
On one level, the very act is a sign of the government unwillingness to give gay Singaporeans a voice.
On another level, it is not just about gay rights. It becomes a human rights and a civil society issue.
The government is not interested in building a participative civil society despite claims. They are not interested in feedback unless it propagates the national agenda. Their interest is in protecting the status quo and maintaining a seemingly liberal front for international media and outsiders.
The very act of “pressurizing” a magazine to conform to its standards or ban talks that are trying to discuss a serious topic is not just imposing censorship on the affected parties. It is a signal to future organisers to thread carefully when they decide to write or engage in controversial issues.
Such restrictions not only deprive of ordinary citizens a right to be exposed to an inflow of information; but also curtail activists; harms existing companies by forcing them to practice self-censorship.
One way in which groups like PLU can do is to network with other groups. It needs to work with other opposition political parties or NGOS such as human rights group, Think Centre or women’s advocacy group, AWARE, in recognizing that there are certain common grounds that can be explored.
Within these grounds, groups can organise activities that can help raise the profile of both their causes. A combined voice is stronger than a lone one.
Can we truly see the bigger picture?
Links
http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/article.php?articleid=16&viewarticle=1&searchtype=all
http://www.plu-singapore.com/
http://www.emanazine.com/press.htm
http://www.thefunstage.org/
