CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.28 p.m.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

As the explanatory statement to this Bill shows, the purpose of this Bill is three-fold. Clause 2 of the Bill merely seeks to regularise what is the present procedure of the Board of Film Censors in the matter of censoring duplicate films. The Board has, since the war, been regarding 16 m.m. and 8 m.m. copies of censored 35 m.m. films and 8 m.m. copies of 16 m.m. censored films as duplicates in this respect and has authorised screening of these duplicates without viewing by the Board. This practice, however, is not strictly in accord with section 16 of the Ordinance which requires a duplicate to be identical in detail, subject matter and footage. A 16 m.m. film is, however, only one-third the length of an otherwise identical 35 m.m. film, and an 8 m.m. film is proportionately shorter.

Clause 2, therefore, repeals and re-enacts section 16 of the Cinematograph Films Ordinance to enable copies of different sizes to be regarded as duplicates for purposes of censorship. Administrative arrangements preclude the chances of evading censorship of duplicate films. Mr Speaker, you will note also that a proviso is added to this clause which prohibits a larger size copy to be regarded as a duplicate of a smaller size censored film. The reason is obvious and is meant to prevent the evasion of proper censorship fees which are based on footage.

The second object of this Bill is to reconstitute the Committee of Appeal and this is provided for in clause 3 of the Bill. The Committee of Appeal of 17 members, as constituted by the existing section 21 of the Ordinance, hardly exists at the moment and this is the main reason for the urgency of this Bill. There have been a number of vacancies since 7th January this year. The abolition of the City Council, which appoints three members, and the Rural Board, which appoints one member, has added to the number of vacancies. In the light of new constitutional changes, this Government considers that the composition of this Committee should now be revised and that it would be more appropriate that all appointments to this Committee should be made by the Minister. Clause 3 therefore proposes that there should be a Committee of Appeal of nine members, including a Chairman and Vice-Chairman to be appointed by the Minister annually. It is unnecessary and unwieldy to have a large Committee like the previous one. A small Committee will be more effective in carrying out the present Government's policy on film censorship which is part and parcel of the anti-yellow culture movement initiated by the Government.

It has been the practice in the past to permit exhibition of films whose underlying purpose is to impress on the subject peoples their inferiority and inadequacy. Films such as "The Four Feathers" and the numerous westerns showing the massacre of the Red Indians by the white men are typical examples. The P.A.P. Government has no wish to see its people conditioned to enjoy films which depict their degradation. Hence early last month, a new directive was issued to the Board of Film Censors that all films whose primary intent is the glorification or justification of colonialism or which are calculated to bring Asians and so-called coloured peoples generally into contempt, ridicule and hatred should be banned. In these days of national awakening, it is particularly important for the Government to bring to our people a new sense of dignity and work.

Mr Speaker, over the last few years, there have been an alarming increase in sex crimes, assaults, extortions and murders. The well-informed public and the law officers have repeatedly pointed out the evil influences of publications and films exhorting violence and sex in its debased form on the young population. The colonial governments, and particularly the Government led by the Member for Cairnhill opposite me, have completely ignored the warnings of the public. No one can deny that widespread publications and the screening of films which emphasise sex, brutality and gangsterism over the years have left a lasting mark on the impressionable youth of today and the mounting waves of crime lately involving a large number of teen-age youths are a clear indication of the evils of yellow culture. The new Government cannot tolerate this state of affairs to continue. While the Board of Film Censors is well advised to implement the directives of the Government on film censorship, a properly constituted Film Appeal Committee could assist tremendously in interpreting the policy of the Government. It is expected that as film censorship is tightened in the interests of the people, there will be many appeals before the Committee. Further, the reconstituted Committee will have to review many of the films that have been passed before. A shorter term of office as proposed would also enable more public-spirited persons to become members of this Committee although annual appointment does not preclude re-appointment.

The third object of the Bill is contained in clause 4 which gives power to the Minister to make regulations which include especially the power to impose film quotas requiring or restricting the showing of certain specified classes of films or films originating from certain specified countries of origin. The introduction of this provision makes it possible to repeal the British Cinematograph Films Proclamation No. 54 of 1946 (which is still and is the last remaining British Military Administration Proclamation to be in force) and which prescribes, inter alia, that all first and second run cinemas showing English language films for more than 50 per cent of their screening time should devote ten per cent of their time to British made films. Although clauses 4 and 5 provide for the power to make regulations and the repeal of the Proclamation, the intention is that these clauses will not be brought into force until the Government has considered in greater detail the question of quotas, the requirements of the local film industry and the regulations which are required. As the House will observe, Mr Speaker, clause 1 provides for different sections of the Bill to be brought into force separately.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.40 p.m.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, my colleague, the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs, has already indicated to the House the desirability that certain amendments must be made to the exhibition of films in public. I would like to add this.

One can amuse oneself either in the home or outside the home. In Singapore in particular, the sources of entertainment and amusement are very limited and the cinema forms an important source of entertainment for the public; but it would be foolish for us to consider the cinema purely from the entertainment point of view. We all must acknowledge that among the powerful media of propaganda we have besides the newspapers and other literature, the cinema too constitutes a very effective medium of propaganda - in fact, I would say a very important medium for conditioning. Memory or ability to remember things depends on what we hear, see and feel. It is on these three sensations that we remember our surroundings and also through these three different stimuli that it is possible for us to be conditioned to adopt certain behavioural attitudes. Our exhibitors should note in particular clause 4 of the Bill which the Minister for Home Affairs is introducing today, and that is:

"that all cinemas or any class of cinema shall show not less than the prescribed number or prescribed proportion of films of a specified class...",

and here I come to the very point which I wish to bring out before the House:

"or from a specified country of origin;".

You must admit that a very large proportion of the films that are exhibited in public come from the United States - Hollywood in particular. Some of these films have a certain educational value in the sense that they tend to bring out the background of the social life in the United States. On the other hand, a large number of films too have very little to teach the sociologists, because many of them are based on impossible events, romance, and so on. I do not say that all those who go to seek entertainment are those who go to the cinemas to be educated. I do not claim that we must be prudish; we should acknowledge that when a film is suitably presented it is not wise that it should be banned or forbidden from screening purely because it comes from some particular country. What I would like to say is this - that we all know that 50 per cent of our population today are 19 years and under and if we were to make a poll of those who go to the cinemas, it would not be surprising to find that a large number of the cinema audience come from the teenagers. In fact, our cinema exhibitors have exploited this point so that you have day shows not only during the weekends but also during weekdays, particularly during school holidays. When films are screened at such times, the audience is not the adult working population but it is the youthful population who have left school and who have no other alternative to occupy themselves. So it is important, Mr Speaker, that what our youth see or hear should be such that they should not be conditioned to imitate characters that are depicted in these films. In the past, or even recently, quite considerable glorification has been built around youthful film stars like the late James Dean and so on and so forth. They depicted the youth as heroes, although many of these heroes have, in the films, taken on the role of an anti-social element. I would say, Mr Speaker, that part of the reaction which we see among our youth today derives partly from what they see in the films. For instance, there is the feeling among our youth that, unless he challenges his companion to be brave, to carry a dagger, or to perform some villainous deed, he is a chicken. That, Mr Speaker is not apt in our society; it is quite contrary to our cultures and our customs.

It is for this purpose that the Minister for Home Affairs is giving fair warning to our film exhibitors in Singapore - that while they cannot purely exhibit films solely for profit, they must consider the effects of such films on our youth; in other words, cinemas have a very important function to play in our lives and our exhibitors should take an important note that cinemas form not only an important medium for propaganda but a very important stimulus for conditioning. We would then advise our exhibitors not to confine the screening of films only to those which are exclusively or very largely made in one country.

Mr Speaker, next to sight, we have sound as a very important stimulus for conditioning. In these days of talkie films, the dialogue that we hear in a cinema is equally important to the senses. In the old days when we had silent films, we were solely dependent on vision and the ability to read, and to understand what was going on. But with dialogue being introduced into films, it is important that what is said should come under the close scrutiny of the censors.

However, Mr Speaker, I would like to add that it is not the intention of our Government that we should act as prudes, or that we wish to control the thought of our people. On the other hand, I would say that democracy or the liberty in screening films would be totally abused if there were also no discipline imposed upon this liberty.

Mr Speaker: I was listening to the Deputy Prime Minister with great interest, but it seemed to me that possibly he was going a little far away from the Bill itself. I allowed him to continue because it seemed to me that he was detailing the reasons which prompted the Government to introduce this Bill. I do not intend that to be taken as meaning that I will give a licence for a debate on the whole film industry! I do ask hon. Members from now on to concentrate on the merits of the Bill as they see it. The Minister for Home Affairs did digress as well, but he did point out what the three principles involved are in the Bill.

4.52 p.m.

Mr Wong Soon Fong (Toa Payoh): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I wholly support this Bill. The film industry is important for the country's education. In Singapore in the past, our cinemas were controlled by the colonialists. In a colonial country, the people were subjected to the thoughts and emotions of the rulers. But in our country today this new Government has appointed the Film Appeal Committee for the purpose of controlling the film industry, as against the Board appointed by the Government previously. The film industry should be controlled by the Ministers of the people's Government, and this amending Bill is to meet that purpose.

We must ensure that films have an educational value for the people of Singapore. We know that the past colonial rulers colonialised us through the medium of films - conditioned our thoughts so that we were without self-respect, like colonial people. Under the old Government, we saw that the films exhibited in Singapore were imported from Japan, Hongkong or America. Those films were yellow films, sensational, and they also depicted forms of slavery, shall we say. The present Government has decided that it should control the film industry for the sake of the people in Singapore. The film industry should not be controlled by foreigners. We should not lose our self-respect. Therefore, we now have this Cinematograph Films (Amendment) Bill, and I fully support it.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, although there has been some digression, nevertheless I think it is still relevant to the point in that we hope that the Film Appeal Committee in future will be strict and fair on the standard that the Government hopes to achieve. And also that in their deliberation on appeals submitted before them, they will give every due consideration in the interest of the public.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Ong Pang Boon].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker: Is it a convenient time to suspend?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Yes, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I shall take the Chair again at half-past five.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.