Radio Censorship

Radio Censorship has not been an area under much scrutiny, however, laws do exist for it, and so do penalties. Are the choices of the Singaporean Government in terms of censored material justifiable, or just plain unreasonable? You decide.

1. What governs censorship?

What is censored
• personal comments and observations of newsreaders, due to it being unwarranted in normal news bulletins, as seen from UnionWorks radio station’s $15,000 fine in 2002.

Another occurrence of this would be when MediaCorp Radio’s Perfect 10 DJ Sheikh Haikel was fired, as to a listener seeking advice on how to approach a girl he fancied, Haikel said he should ask her if she was wearing white panties. A listener complained about this in a letter to the Straits Times Forum Page. After this, the Media Development Authority (MDA) said the incident breached the Radio Programme Code. That was also the day he received a letter of termination from MediaCorp Radio.

• comments of political opposition parties – a Radio Corporation Singapore (RCS) radio report on a Human Rights Day event at Speakers Corner was edited because it contained comments from JB Jeyaretnam. Shortly after, the journalist had ‘resigned’.

• expletives – for obvious reasons, such as, to prevent the easily-influenced listeners from picking up bad habits such as swearing, and to preserve a conservative and cultured image of Singapore’s society

• publications that deals with race or religion in a manner that is likely to cause feelings of hatred or enmity between different racial or religious groups

• publication that deals with political issues found inappropriate or offensive by the authority

• a publication on violence or obscenity – Radio station 98.7 FM was fined for hosting a FHM contest which challenged women to remove their bras without taking off their shirts. Mediacorp Radio had to fork out $9800 to MDA, who claimed the station was ‘contravening a broadcast code’. The article stated ‘affluent southeast Asian city state felt such behavior was not merely inappropriate and offensive, but actually unfit for public consumption.’, which was their rationale for this form of censorship.
The main rationale behind censorship would be to maintain social order in Singapore’s society.

What is not censored
• material considered beneficial to society, such as educational programmes, campaigns

2. How radio censorship is exercised

• the seven second delay : “live” broadcasts on radio stations in Singapore are delayed for 7 seconds, to provide time for profanity and undesirable material to be deleted or censored before reaching the ears of listeners.
• some other countries that take part in broadcast delay
• Australia
• China
• Cuba
• India
• Iran
• Israel
• Japan
• Malaysia
• Russia
• Soviet Union
• Sweden
• Taiwan
• United Kingdom
• United States

3. Who enforces radio censorship?

From 1 Jan 2003 onwards, Media Development Authority (MDA) which was formed by the mergence of the SBA, the Films and Publications Department (FPD) and the Singapore Film Commission (SFC).
From 1 Oct 1994 to 1 Jan 2003 it was handled by the Singapore Broadcasting Authority (SBA), which was formed with the passing act of the Singapore Broadcasting Act 1994.

4. Penalties for violating radio censorship laws

Radio stations will face fines, for example, UnionWorks’ Mandarin radio station was fined $15,000.
By Law: Any person who produces objectionable publications is to be charged and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding S$5,000(approx. US$7,700), to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

References/Acknowledgements

Singapore Infopedia, a service provided by the National Library Board of Singapore

http://singaporerebel.blogspot.com
http://www.medienobservationen.lmu.de/artikel/gesellschaft/chang_censorship.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/06/singapore_radio_987_fined_for.html
http://www.hardware-one.com/forum/read_msg.php?tid=216003&forumid=chitchat

Claire’s Personal Analysis on Singapore’s Radio Censorship

In my opinion, the censorship laws in Singapore is centered strongly towards censoring political issues, and mainly in disfavor of opposition parties. This further complicates the job of opposition party members, which might not be completely fair.

Singaporean Censorship also should practice less stringent laws on censorship of media, and not underestimate the moral capabilities of Singaporeans. I feel that Sheikh Haikel’s extermination of employment was uncalled for, and unnecessary attention was placed on the issue. What he said, though perhaps distasteful and rude, was not an outright insult to any person of any race or religion, and was only said in jest. The listener had requested for advice, and advice was given. Granted, it was not the best advice, but the radio station did not promise so. If the listeners felt offended, perhaps they should stop listening to the radio if they are truly searching for serious and honest advice on life issues. Radio shows are created for the sake of entertainment, and listeners should keep that in mind while tuning in. Entertainers should not be punished for doing their jobs. Perhaps, if the radio station itself was upset with the style chosen by the radio show hosts, they could deal with it internally and give the host a chance to change his personal style or humor.

Perhaps the reason why Singaporeans are unable to think ‘out of the box’ and objectively is because they have been spoon fed all their lives, with people telling them what is ‘right’ to think or believe in. Maybe if we had more exposure to self censorship, we would not be so lacking in opinion and the ability to think and reason on our feet.