Masala Too Hot For Singaporean Tastebuds?

[Singapore’s Films Appeals Committee  (FAC) has overturned the MDA ban on a controversial film imposed following a majority call for an NAR (Not Allowed For All Ratings) rating by its Films Consultative Panel. However, the FAC has given the film entitled, Sex.Violence.Family Values, a R21 rating with edits, something that the film director said was not ideal but still better than an outright ban.] – update TODAYonline | Culture & Lifestyle | Movies | Sex.Violence.FamilyValues can be shown with R21 rating.

The recent MDA banning of Ken Kwek’s film, Sex.Violence.Family Values, ignited a furore in the social media space. Many from the creative fields expressed their disappointment and anger that a film with good acting chops and daring enough to tackle issues deemed taboo in Singapore, was given an NAR rating or Not Allowed For All Ratings by MDA after consulting members of its Film Consultative Panel (FCP).

But after reading the many media reports and the social media chatter (some of which were harshly critical of the MDA), I have more questions than answers on the issue of the boundaries of artistic licence and whether Singaporeans are really ready for a no holds barred sort of development of the arts here.

The film’s premiere at Cathay Cineleisure Cineplex on Friday, 5 Oct 2012 was reportedly well received, after initially been given an M18 rating. According to media reports, the ban took effect on Monday, 8 Oct 2012. See the TODAY report TODAYonline | Culture & Lifestyle | Movies | Bitter pill.

Kwek’s film is actually an anthology of 3 short films of which the 2nd one, Porn Masala, was deemed the offending one. In that short film, a crass, uncouth film director played by Adrian Pang works with an Indian actor, played by Vasantham TV star, Vadi PVSS, to make Singapore’s first “arthouse porno”.

One part of Porn Masala, shows Adrian’s character spewing all the wicked stereotypes that one can think of about Indians (some of which emanating from contempt and some from purported ignorance), including classics like using ghee as hair cream, having bad body odour, being alcoholics and wife beaters and being natives of Africa.

The film reaches a climax (pun intended) when Vadi’s character,  is unable to “perform” on the set with a young Chinese girl and incurs the wrath of the film director (Adrian Pang) which leads to Vadi retaliating by hurling racial insults at him and Chinese in general.

Are the authorities afraid that more people will imitate the offensive behaviour of Adrian Pang’s racist character in the film, a case of anti-mimesis or the philosophy which states that Life imitates Art, robustly proposed by 19th century author, Oscar Wilde in his essay The Decay of Lying?

After 47 years of independence and  many more years of history behind us of working and living around people of many races and religions and social backgrounds, are Singaporeans unable to think critically and perceive for themselves the good and bad in a film like Porn Masala? And by extrapolation, may I venture to ask the even bigger question of whether Singapore can grow as a truly global city, embracing modern technology and the creative arts with equal voracity?

All very tough questions but questions that we Singaporeans need to ponder and reflect on seriously if we are supposed to progress as a united country. Perhaps these are questions that the current national initiative, Singapore Conversation, should consider asking citizens

Maybe the socio-political atmosphere in Singapore was just not right for the film to get a public screening licence, following the Amy Cheng saga.

The Minister for Communications and Information, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, offered some clarifications on the MDA’s reclassification of the film after consultation with the FCP and the appeal process in Parliament on 12 November 2012. His clarifications seem to suggest that filmmakers could be asked to make representations to the FCP in similar cases in future. Please also see TODAYonline | Hot News | Stance on satirical film ‘not a step backwards’.

There are other issues in the film which are controversial (but perhaps less volatile) and which perhaps were not highlighted and not as hotly debated in the media. For example, the part played by the girl in school uniform taking on the role of Vadi’s sex partner in the porn film (in itself a controversial hot topic in Singapore following the indictment of several men for sex with an underaged girl) and the minor but nonetheless important issue of the girl wearing a pinafore which is so easily recognisable as that of a well-known Catholic school in Singapore.

I would not blame the school for taking offense in a such a case because it creates an unfair stereotype affecting all girls who wear the same school uniform. A similar but more serious incident led to schools taking legal advice against a private club for misuse of their school crests . Please read the following news article in TODAY newspaper, TODAYonline | Singapore | Filter Members Club apologises to CHIJ & ACS for use of school crests.

I am not trying to defend MDA’s decision to give a NAR rating to Kwek’s film in this blog. But neither am I fully in support of the vocal creative arts practitioners who were against the rating decision because frankly the issue is so much bigger than the freedom of creative expression and encompasses so many other issues, social, political and even economic.

I am truly sympathetic of Kwek’s plight in that he has to shoulder a substantial economic loss as a result of the ban. But I wonder whether the ban serves as a reminder to filmmakers once again, to develop more skillful and sophisticated techniques in tackling issues of race and religion in their narratives.

Kwek and Pang both reiterated that the film uses satire and parody to attack racism and stereotypes. But satire and parody are not easy techniques to employ in film if they are to be successful especially in the Singapore context. So even though Sacha Baron Cohen and the makers of mockumentary, Borat, were successful in the use of satire, this technique may have to be tweaked for the Singapore audience where it involves a Singaporean narrative.

This is apparent and can be inferred from the article by John Lui in the Sunday Times, “The Canary In The Coal Mine Of Racial Speech”, 14 Oct 2012, where he interviewed Ms Cheryl Ng, Film Consultative Panel member and paraphrased her as saying that it is “hard to remember what you are supposed to be laughing at when the jokes are so mean”.

Lui also said in his article that panel members think that “there will be enough people laughing with Pang’s character” and not at him, to cause offense. It appears from Ms Ng’s response that the Singapore audience may not be sophisticated enough to both understand and fully appreciate satires and parodies, especially in the film format.

So what exactly is the state of our community and inter-racial affairs in Singapore? Editor Warren Fernandez in his weekly Sunday Times commentary dated 14 Oct 2012, entitled “Are We Taking Racial Peace For Granted?” said time and again he was shocked to hear some parents tell their kids not to play with children of some other races as they might be a bad influence. Or others who say that they do not want their child in a certain school because of its racial make-up. Or businessmen who say they will trade only with people like themselves whom they can trust.

I got an interesting insight into the state of inter-racial trust in Singapore when I attended a MediaCorp event recently. At the event, the findings of a MediaCorp research study of youths aged 12 – 29 were released. 

One rather disconcerting finding was that only 67% of the youths surveyed can work with different races. This means 1 in 3 youths surveyed (33%) said they cannot work with people from a different race. That, to me, is a shocking statistic, given the demographic in question (our future leaders)  and given all the government has done and is doing to promote racial harmony in schools, in the workplace and in the community.

So whether Life imitates Art or Art imitates Life, we Singaporeans have a duty to play our part to enhance racial harmony and a truly united community in any way we can, whether it is as a parent or a child at home, or as a boss or a worker in the office or as a filmmaker, writer or an artist.