Hazards of Film Making

Martyn See, the producer of "Singapore Rebel", a 26 minute documentary featuring Opposition member Mr Chee Soon Juan, had to withdraw the movie from Singapore's annual film festival, after the police warned him its political content could land him in jail. This is because the censorship board apparently viewed the film as a "party political film". After 16 months of investigation, 3 interrogation sessions, 120 questions, and not discounting a covert round of interviews with some friends and associates whose phone numbers were listed in his mobile, the police finally decided to close their case against him. Assistant Superintendent Chan Peng Kuang wrote in 7 Aug 2006 that, upon conclusion of their investigation, the police has decided to issue a warning in lieu of a prosecution.

Following is the official position on "party political film" as commented by a lawyer who has taken it down from his blog. To protect his identity, the comments have been suitably modified, but the meaning should be obvious to the casual reader:

In 1998, the Films Act was amended to introduce the concept of "party political films". (Prior to that, the only other category of films that the Films Act specifically referred to by subject-matter was "obscene films"). Essentially, no one is allowed to import, make, reproduce or exhibit any party political film. This means any film:

1. which is an advertisement made by or for any political party in Singapore, or any organisation whose focus is mainly on Singapore's politics; or

2. which is made by any person and which is directed towards any political end in Singapore.

In turn, the phrase "directed towards any political end in Singapore" is further defined as follows:

For the purposes of this Act, a film is directed towards a political end in Singapore if the film —

(a) contains wholly or partly any matter which is intended or likely to affect voting in any election or national referendum in Singapore; or

(b) contains wholly or partly either partisan or biased references to or comments on any political matter, including but not limited to any of the following:

(i) an election or a national referendum in Singapore;

(ii) a candidate or group of candidates in an election;

(iii) an issue submitted or otherwise before electors in an election or a national referendum in Singapore;

(iv) the Government or a previous Government or the opposition to the Government or previous Government;

(v) a Member of Parliament;

(vi) a current policy of the Government or an issue of public controversy in Singapore; or

(vii) a political party in Singapore or any body whose objects relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore, or any branch of such party or body.

Note the magic words "including but not limited to". This means that you don't necessarily have to fall into the examples listed from (i) to (vii) to run foul of the law. As long as you make a film that comments on any political matter (even if not mentioned in the (i)-to(vii) list), you have made a party political film and you have committed a crime.

Note also the legal definition of film under the Films Act. "Film" isn't limited to the kind of show you typically associate with a film festival or a trip to a Golden Village cinema. Under the Films Act, "film" means:

(a) any cinematograph film;

(b) any video recording, including a video recording that is designed for use wholly or principally as a game;

(c) any other material record or thing on which is recorded or stored for immediate or future retrieval any information that, by the use of any computer or electronic device, is capable of being reproduced or displayed as wholly or partly visual moving pictures,

and includes any part of a film, and any copy or part of a copy of the whole or any part of a film

Conceivably, any tiny segment video recording, for example, even 7 seconds of comedic footage showing a Minister hanging out in a gay bar, could be a party political film. And it would be a criminal offence to make such a video.

So just how can the official television station TCS even feature PAP politicians on the 9 o'clock news without technically committing an offence?

The clever folks in Parliament already thought of that. So they snuck in this clever little provision:

For the avoidance of doubt, any film which is made solely for the purpose of reporting of current events is not a party political film.

Well then, you may think that apart from the news, the PAP won't be allowed to use film media to spread any of its own messages.

Don't worry, those little problems are all taken care of. (It's really quite easy to make laws exactly the way you want them to be, if you hold 79 out of 81 seats in Parliament). Section 40 of the Films Act says:

"This Act shall not apply to any film sponsored by the Government."

That is, any film sponsored by the Singapore government is perfectly fine, even if it contains obscene material or explicit political content. And as if that wasn't enough, they also put this in the Act:

"The Minister may, subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, exempt any person or class of persons or any film or class of films from all or any of the provisions of this Act."

So any film can be exempted if the Minister likes the film. In other words, even if a film is bursting with political messages, the Minister can still allow the film to be imported, sold, distributed and exhibited - no problems whatsoever - as long as the Minister likes those political messages.

On the other hand, what do you think are the chances of any PAP Minister liking Martyn See's film?

Aftermath:

On 25th Aug 2005 Singapore police asked Martyn See to surrender the video camera and tapes he used to make the documentary on opposition figure Chee Soon Juan as part of its investigation for possible breach of film laws. Martyn told Reuters the demand was made after he had been questioned for three hours at a police station on Thursday. It was the second time Singapore authorities interviewed him about the 26-minute documentary he withdrew from the city-state's annual film festival in March under pressure from government censors.

"The questions were more political than last time and I think they were intended to find out about my political affiliation," he said.

Here are a sample of some of the questions which totalled about 60:

When asked what inspired you to make this film, you claimed that political opposition in Singapore is marginalised. What do you mean by "marginalised?"

What in your opinion should the media do?

So you mean that the Singapore media is being unfair to political opposition?

You claimed that you took two and a half years to make the film. So is it normal for filmmakers to take such such a period to make a 26 minute film?

What sort of activities of Chee Soon Juan were you waiting that you think was worth shooting?

You mentioned that a friend of yours named Peter did the voiceover for the film? Is he contactable?

You mentioned that you edited the film on a friend's Macintosh laptop. Is he contactable?

How was the item (laptop) passed to you and how was it returned to him?

Did you save any of the footages in his computer?

Do you own a computer now?

There were some newspaper articles on your blog? How did you secure those articles?

In your film, there were footages of Chee Soon Juan making speeches at a election rally. Where did you secure the footage?

Did you duplicate the video before returning?

Why was the election rally audio muted?

When did you know that Singapore Rebel was classified a party political film?

I am informing you that Lesley Ho's (of Singapore International Film Festival) email dated March 2005 had mentioned that Philip (co-director of SIFF) was told that Singapore Rebel was objectionable pertaining to party political films. You were told that if you did not withdraw the film, the "full extent of the law" will apply. What do you have to say to that?

So you agree that at this stage when you read Lesley's email, you knew that Singapore Rebel was classified as a party political film?

Since you knew that the film "may have been" a party political film at that stage, why would you want to circulate the film to overseas film festivals?

Can you recall participating in any activities organised by any political party in Singapore?

(Somewhere at this point of the interview, I told ASP Chan that I would walk out if questions continue along this line).

Did Chee Soon Juan direct you to do the filming on May Day (arrests of 2002)?

On 19th July, 2005, Chee Soon Juan and some members was speaking at Speakers Corner? Were you there to film the event? Who directed you to film the event?

On August 11, 2005, were you present in front of CPF Building when Chee Soon Juan and other SDP members gathered for a protest?

Did you contact Chee Soon Juan after the video interview on Singapore Rebel?

Are you still in contact with Chee Soon Juan now?

I do not want to go to your house. Are you able to produce to the police the following items?

1) Two remaining copies of Singapore Rebel
2) Receipts from courier services of you mailing the film to New Zealand and USA (as mentioned in your earlier statement)
3) The Samsung mini-DV camera you used to make Singapore Rebel, and
4) Any raw footages of Singapore Rebel before the editing.

Update: Aug 30, 2005

Mr Yap Keng Ho, an activist in Singapore, made a police report today against CNA. Uncle Yap is asking the police to look into two programmes produced and aired by the state-controlled local broadcaster ChannelNewsAsia or CNA, Success Stories and Up Close. These programmes can also be considered "party political films" under the Films Act.

Mr Yap made the report at the Tampines Neighbourhood Police Centre today, citing that two films, "Success Story" which portrayed Mr Lee Kuan Yew and "Up Close" which featured five PAP ministers including Mr Lee Hsien Loong, were screened on Channel News Asia in 2002 and 2005 respectively.

The complaint comes at a time when the police are investigating Mr Martyn See for making a film about Dr Chee Soon Juan, which the Media Development Authority has said is political in nature and therefore a violation of the Films Act.

Mr Yap said in his report that the screening of the political documentaries of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP ministers likewise contravened the Films Act and has asked the police to investigate the matter.

A Lesson In Singapore Law

In 1997, the Workers' Party had complained to the police that Mr Goh Chok Tong, Dr Tony Tan and Brigadier-General (NS) Lee Hsien Loong had been inside a Cheng San GRC polling station on Polling Day. The Public Prosecutor subsequently advised the police that the PAP leaders had not broken the law. The logic applied here, as detailed in the missive quoted hereunder from the honourable Attorney General, effectively says that "while it is illegal to be within 200 metres of a polling station unless you are voting, IT IS NOT ILLEGAL IF YOU ARE INSIDE." No explanation is given how anyone can be inside the polling station without being within 200 metres of the polling station in the first place.

Following is the text of the letter from Singapore's Attorney General to Law Minister S. Jayakumar on the presence of unauthorised persons inside polling stations. The opinions in this letter were put forward in Parliament in reply to Opposition MP J.B. Jeyaratnam's queries on July 30:


21 July 1997

Prof S Jayakumar
Minister for Law

PRESENCE OF UNAUTHORISED PERSONS INSIDE POLLING STATIONS

On 14 July l997, THE Workers' Party issued a press release expressing "amazement" that the public prosecutor had advised police that no offence was disclosed in the reports made by it leaders against the prime minister, the two deputy prime ministers and Dr S Vasoo that they had been present inside polling stations when they were not candidates for the relevant constituencies. The Workers' Party queried why such conduct was not an offence under paragraph (d) or (e) of section 82(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act.

2. On 15 July 1997, the Singapore Democratic Party also called on the attorney general to explain his "truly befuddling" decision and to state clearly if it was an offence for unauthorised persons to enter polling stations.

3. You have asked me for my formal opinion on the question raised in these two statements. My opinion is set out below.

4. The question is whether it is an offence under the Parliamentary Elections Act for an unauthorised person to enter and be present in a polling station.

5. For this purpose, the authorised persons are the candidates, the polling agent or agents of each candidate, the Returning Officer, and persons authorised in writing by the returning officer, the police officers on duty and other persons officially employed at the polling station; see section 39 (4) of the Act (quoted below)

Activities Outside Polling Stations

6. The relevant sections of the Parliamentary Elections Act to be considered are sections 82 (1)(d) and 82 (1)(e). These provisions were enacted m 1959 pursuant to the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections, Cmd 7 of 1968 (hereinafter called "the Elias Report)"

7. Section 82 (1)(d) provides that - "No person shall wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote".

8. Plainly, persons found waiting inside the polling stations do not come within the ambit of this section. Similarly, those who enter or have entered the polling station cannot be said to be waiting outside it. Only those who wait outside the polling station commit an offence under this section unless they are waiting to enter the polling station to cast their votes.

9. Section 82 (1)(e) provides that -

"No person shall loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station on polling day."

10. The relevant question is whether any person who is inside a polling station can be said to be "within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station". The answer to this question will also answer any question on loitering inside a polling station.

11. Plainly, a person inside a polling station cannot be said to be within a radius of 200 metres of a polling station. A polling station must have adequate space for the voting to be carried out. Any space has a perimeter. The words "within a radius of 200 metres" ' therefore mean "200 metres from the perimeter of" any polling station.

12. The above interpretation is fortified by the context of the provision. The polling station, as a place, is distinguished from a street or public place. It is not a street or a public place. Hence, being inside a polling station cannot amount to being in a street or in a public place. By parity of reasoning, loitering in a street or public place cannot possibly include loitering in the polling station itself and vice versa.

13. There is no ambiguity in section 82 (1)(e). If the legislature had intended to make it an offence for unauthorised persons to wait or loiter inside a polling station, it could have easily provided for it. It did not. The mischief that section 82 (1)(e) is intended to address is found in paragraph 99 of the Elias Report. It reads:

"In order to prevent voters being made subject to my form of undue influence or harassment at the approaches to polling stations, we recommend that it should be made an offence for any person to establish any desk or table near the entrance to any polling station, or to wait outside any polling station on polling day except for the purpose of gaining entry into the polling station to cast his vote; and that it should be an offence for any person to loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 yards of any polling station on polling day ."

14 . Paragraph 99 of the Elias Report appears under the heading "Activity OUTSIDE POLLING STATIONS". The Commission of Inquiry was addressing the possibility of voters being subject to undue influence and harassment as they approach the polling stations. There is therefore no doubt whatever that this provision was never intended to cover any activity inside the polling station as there would be officials and election agents in attendance.

15. The legislative history makes the provision so clear that it is not even necessary to consider the application of an established principle of interpretation that any ambiguity in a penal provision should, whenever possible, be resolved favour of the accused.

Activities Inside Polling Stations

16. Activities inside polling stations were made subject to a different regime under the Act. Section 39(4) provides that -

"the presiding officer shall keep order in his station and shall regulate the number of voters to be admitted a time, and shall exclude all other persons except the polling agent or agents of each candidate, the Returning Officer and persons authorised in writing by the Returning Officer, the police officers on duty and other persons officially employed at the polling station."

17. Under section 39(7), any person who misconducts himself in the polling station, or fails to obey the lawful orders of the presiding officer may be removed from the polling station by a police officer acting under the orders of the presiding officer. If an unauthorised person refuses to leave the polling station when told to do so by the public officer, he commits an offence under section 186 of the Penal Code for obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his duty.

18. There is a consistency in the rationales of the regulatory schemes governing activities inside and those outside polling stations on election day. Waiting outside a polling station is made an offence because it gives rise to opportunities to influence or intimidate voters: see paragraph 99 of the Elias Report. Hence, the Act has provided a safety zone which stretches outwards for 200 metres from the polling station. In contrast, the possibility of a person inside a polling station influencing or intimidating voters in the presence of the presiding officer and his officials, the polling agents etc was considered so remote that it was discounted by the Act.

19. I therefore confirm my opinion that the Parliamentary Elections Act does not provide for any offence of unauthorised entry into or presence within a polling station. Accordingly, those unauthorised persons who only wait or loiter inside a polling station on polling day do not commit any offence under the Act.

20. You are at liberty to publish this opinion.


Signed:
Chan Sek Keong
Attorney General