Censorship in Singapore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Censorship in Singapore mainly targets political, racial and religious issues, as defined by out-of-bounds markers.


The Media Development Authority (MDA) approves publications, issues arts entertainment licences and enforces the Free-to-air (FTA) TV Programme Code, Subscription TV Programme Code, TV Advertising Code, Radio Programme Code and Radio Advertising Code through financial penalties.[1] The MDA's decisions may be appealed to the Broadcast, Publications and Arts Appeal Committee (BPAA)[2] and the Films Appeal Committee (FAC).[3]

The Censorship Review Committee (CRC) meets every ten years to "review and update censorship objectives and principles to meet the long-term interests of our society".[4] The CRC was most recently reconvened in 2009 and made some 80 recommendations the following year, most of which were accepted.[5]


The Government of Singapore argues that censorship of political, racial and religious issues to a certain extent is necessary to avoid upsetting the delicate balance of Singapore's multi-racial society.

Films and videos[edit]

Further information: Cinema of Singapore

The importing, making, distributing or exhibiting of films in Singapore is governed by the Films Act of 1981.[6]

Film censorship has historically been strict, although the gradual introduction of the NC16, M18 and R21 ratings now allow most major Hollywood features to be shown uncut in Singapore. The rating system was first introduced in 1991 with the now defunct R(A) rating to allow those aged 18 years and above to watch films with explicit content. However, due to public objection, the rating system was revised and the age limit was lifted from 18 to 21 years old.[7]

Films for commercial release are presented to the Media Development Authority (MDA) which classifies the films under six different ratings for different groups of audiences:

  • G (General) – Suitable For All Ages.
  • PG (Parental Guidance) – Suitable For Most But Parents Should Guide Their Young. May contain moderate violence without details, brief rear nudity, moderate coarse language and mild sex references/innuendos.
  • PG13 (Parental Guidance 13) – Suitable For Persons Aged 13 And Above But Parental Guidance Is Advised For Children Below 13. Recommended by the CRC in 2009, the PG13 rating is given to films with content deemed unsuitable for young children but for which a NC16 rating is not warranted. May contain moderate violence with some details, some mature themes, intense and realistic horror, sexual innuendoes, crude hand gestures, sexual imagery, side profile nudity, discreet drug use/references and coarse language including infrequent usages of F-word.[8] (This classification was introduced in 2011)
  • NC16 (No Children Below 16) – No Children Below 16 Years Of Age. May contain brief scenes of upper body female frontal nudity in partial sexual context, moderate sexual activity without nudity and other strong details, same-sex kissing, graphic violence and gore with some details, strong horror, strong religious themes, moderate drug use with some details and strong coarse language. (This classification was introduced in 1993)
  • M18 (Mature 18) – For Persons 18 Years And Above. May contain full frontal nudity with moderate details (male/female genitalia) in sexual context, strong sexual activity with some details, strong graphic violence and gore, frequent strong coarse language, frequent drug use with some details, strong religious themes, homosexual themes and implied homosexual activity. (This classification was introduced in 2004)
  • R21 (Restricted 21) – Restricted To Persons Aged 21 And Above. May contain graphic full frontal nudity with strong details (close ups of male/female genitalia) in sexual context, sequences of explicit and prolonged simulated heterosexual sexual activities, themes involving deviant sexual activities (e.g. sadomasochism, bondage, orgies or sex involving violence), non-explicit homosexual activity, strong homosexual themes including same-sex marriage/parenting, pervasive strong coarse language, very strong and graphic depictions of violence and gore, depiction of torture with strong details and drug taking sequences with strong details. (This classification was introduced in 2004)
  • NAR (Not Allowed For All Ratings) – In exceptional cases, a film may not be allowed for all ratings (NAR) when the content of the film undermines national interest or erodes the moral fabric of society. This includes themes that promote issues that denigrate any race or religion, or undermine national interest, language that denigrates religion or is religiously profane (e.g. Jesus F**king Christ), real sexual activities (e.g. actual penetration, actual ejaculation), content deemed to be pornographic or obscene in nature, explicit promotion and normalisation of homosexual lifestyle, explicit homosexual activity, materials glorifying or encouraging drug and substance abuse and detailed or gratuitous depictions of extreme violence or cruelty.

The categories G, PG and PG13 are age-advisory ratings. NC16, M18 and R21 are age-restricted ratings.

Movies that are classified as R21 are currently excluded from home video releases. However, as recommended by the latest CRC in September 2010, R21 Video-on-Demand (VOD) is now allowed on Pay TV services.[8]

As of February 2015, only cinemas located in downtown Singapore are licensed to screen R21-rated movies such as Hollywood's gay biopic Milk which won Sean Penn the 2009 Best Actor Oscar for his portrayal of a homosexual politician.[9] In the same month, the controversial film Fifty Shades of Grey was released uncut in Singapore with an R21 rating.

Oftentimes, this film classification system compels film distributors to create an alternate, cleaner version of the film to qualify for less restrictive ratings and increased screenings for theatrical releases as R21 films are not allowed in suburban areas. For example, in 2007, distributor Focus Features released Lust, Caution (2007) in two versions: an edited NC16 version that was nine minutes shorter and another that was R21-rated and uncut. At the same time, the MDA allows for "some leeway during classification" for films with "limited screenings". For instance, in 2012, Cathay-Keris Films was told that Shame (2011) would receive an R21 rating in mainstream cinemas if a scene involving group sex was removed. However, when the film was re-submitted for classification by the Singapore Film Society in 2013 for a film festival, the MDA gave it an R21 rating without cuts.[10]

The film Black Swan (2010) was passed with an M18 rating, but only after a scene showing an explicit lesbian sex act was cut. In 2011, the Oscar-nominated drama The Kids Are All Right (2010) was given an R21 rating and restricted to a one-print release as the film is explicit in its portrayal of a lesbian family as a normal and acceptable lifestyle.[10] The films Following Desire (2007), A Jihad for Love (2007), David the Tolhidan (2008), Arabs and Terrorism (2008), Bakushi (2008), Female Games (2009), Boy (2009), Brides of Allah (2009) and Transgressor (School of the Holy Beast) (2009) were all banned with the NAR rating.[11]

Before the introduction of a film classification system in 1991, films like A Clockwork Orange (1971), Last Tango in Paris (1972), The Exorcist (1973), The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) and Saint Jack (1979) were banned. In the late 1980s, The Accused (1988) had a five-minute gang rape scene cut, while the fake orgasm sequence in When Harry Met Sally... (1989) was excised.

Some local films have also run afoul of the MDA. In 2007, filmmaker Loo Zihan's homosexual-themed Solos (2007) was given an NAR rating.[12] In June 2012, the MDA revoked the M18 classification of Singaporean director Ken Kwek's Sex.Violence.FamilyValues (2012) and banned the film a day after its premiere, alleging that the "Porn Masala" section of the film contained scenes which were offensive to Singapore's Indian community.[13][14] The film's director and producers submitted an appeal to Singapore's government-appointed Films Appeal Committee, asking for the ban to be lifted.[15][16] In January 2013, the Films Appeal Committee overturned the Board of Film Censors' decision and lifted the ban, giving it an R21 rating subject to edits by the filmmaker.[17][18][19]

In September 2014, Singaporean filmmaker Tan Pin Pin's documentary about Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) political exiles, To Singapore, With Love (2013), received an NAR rating, with the MDA claiming that it undermined national security as "the individuals in the film have given distorted and untruthful accounts of how they came to leave Singapore and remain outside Singapore," and that "a number of these self-professed 'exiles' were members of, or had provided support to, the proscribed CPM."[20]

Party political films[edit]

The controversial Section 33 of the Films Act bans of the making, distribution and exhibition of "party political films", at pain of a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years. The Act further defines a "party political film" as any film or video

(a) which is an advertisement made by or on behalf of any 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; or
(b) which is made by any person and directed towards any political end in Singapore

Exceptions are, however, made for films "made solely for the purpose of reporting of current events", or informing or educating persons on the procedures and polling times of elections or referendums.

In 2001, the short documentary called A Vision of Persistence on opposition politician J. B. Jeyaretnam was also banned for being a "party political film". The makers of the documentary, all lecturers at the Ngee Ann Polytechnic, later submitted written apologies and withdrew the documentary from being screened at the 2001 Singapore International Film Festival in April, having been told they could be charged in court. Another short documentary called Singapore Rebel by Martyn See, which documented Singapore Democratic Party leader Dr Chee Soon Juan's acts of civil disobedience, was banned from the 2005 Singapore International Film Festival on the same grounds and See is being investigated for possible violations of the Films Act.

Channel NewsAsia's five-part documentary series on Singapore's PAP ministers in 2005 were not considered a party political film. The government response was that the programme was part of current affairs and thus does not contravene the Films Act[citation needed].

Since they do not concern the politics of Singapore, films that call out political beliefs of other countries, for example Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911, are allowed.

Since March 2009, the Films Act has been amended to allow party political films as long as they were deemed factual and objective by a consultative committee. Some months later, this committee lifted the ban on Singapore Rebel.[21]


In 1963, Singapore banned the hit song Puff, the Magic Dragon, fearing that it referenced marijuana.[22] Janet Jackson's albums Velvet Rope and All For You were also banned due to homosexual and sexually explicit themes that the BPAA found "not acceptable to our society".[22] The bans have since been lifted. Katy Perry's hit single, I Kissed a Girl, is banned on the airwaves as it discusses homosexuality however the album is available on sale at retail outlets.

Video games[edit]

On 14 April 2008, the Media Development Authority announced that an official video games classification system will be in effect on 28 April 2008.[23] No cuts are stipulated to Approved titles. Under the system, video games that contain stronger content featuring graphic sex/nudity, coarse language, drug use and graphic violence, will be given either an age-advisory rating sticker or use/share the M18 rating used for film classification similar to those found on home video media in Singapore.

  • Age Advisory (Suitable for 16 and above) – May contain moderate graphic violence, some drug use, implied sexual activity, partial nudity and some strong language.

Examples: Mass Effect 2, Assassin's Creed II, Resident Evil 5, Left 4 Dead and Hitman: Blood Money

  • M18 (Mature 18) – Restricted to persons 18 years and above. Contains mature themes including homosexual content, depictions of realistic violence, such as killing, maiming or causing other serious injury to humanoid characters if the violence is not sadistic, cruel and abhorrent, realistic drug use, portrayal of sexual activity with some nudity, both topless and frontal, if not detailed, depiction of topless nudity or occasional full frontal nudity and frequent use of strong coarse language.

Examples: Kingpin: Life of Crime, Yakuza 3, Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures, Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2, Grand Theft Auto III and Manhunt 2

Games that do not fall into any of these categories are rated "General" for all ages and are not required to carry any label. The purchase of games with the M18 rating legally require retailers to conduct age checks, while "Age Advisory" games are not required to have mandatory age checks.

Previously, the Media Development Authority and by extension, the Singapore government has also banned several video games before the introduction of the classification system. For example (as of November 2007) the video game The Darkness (due to presence of graphic violence and swear words) and more recently Mass Effect from Bioware due to the in game option of a homosexual romance if the player chooses to play as a female. Mass Effect was later unbanned with the implementation of the aforementioned games ratings system that was still in development then. However, similar games with graphic violence such as Prince of Persia and Gears of War (players can perform decapitation moves) or other Bioware games like Neverwinter Nights and Jade Empire (which both allow the possibility of male-male and female-female romances) have not been banned or censored.

Performing arts[edit]

The scripts of all plays to be performed in Singapore must be vetted in advance by the Media Development Authority (MDA), which has the right to ban any it views as "contrary to the public interest". Appeals against MDA's decisions can be made to the Broadcast, Publications and Arts Appeal Committee (BPAA).[2]

In 1994, performance artist Josef Ng protested the arrest and caning of 12 homosexual men by caning slabs of tofu, then turning his back to the audience and snipping off some pubic hair. He was charged with committing an obscene act and banned from performing in public, and his theatre group's grants were cancelled.[24]

In 2005, the MDA withheld the licence for the play Human Lefts unless some scenes were edited and all references to the death penalty removed. The play was originally written about the hanging of Shanmugam Murugesu and was to have been staged one day after the controversial execution of Australian national Nguyen Tuong Van.[25]

In August 2006, a play Smegma was banned by Media Development Authority which said that: "the play portrays Muslims in a negative light."[26]

In May 2010, the National Arts Council has cut the annual grant given to local theatre company W!LD RICE. It will get $170,000 this year, down from $190,000 the year before. It is the lowest annual grant that the company has received from the council. Artistic director Ivan Heng says the council told him funding was cut because its productions promoted alternative lifestyles, were critical of government policies and satirised political leaders. In March 2011, NAC increased to $1.92 million, a 25% hike, the amount to be given to 16 arts companies, including W!LD RICE, under its one-year Major Grant scheme.[27]

Print media[edit]

Further information: Media of Singapore

Local press[edit]

The local papers ... are essentially organs of the state, instruments of only the most desirable propagation.

William Gibson"Disneyland with the Death Penalty", Wired Issue 1.04, September 1993.

With the sole exception of MediaCorp's daily freesheet Today, all daily newspapers including the flagship Straits Times are printed by Singapore Press Holdings, whose management shareholders are appointed by the government in accordance with the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act of 1974. While current shareholding structure does not imply direct governmental control on media content[citation needed], their active presence promotes self-censorship amongst journalists.[28] In 2008, Reporters without Borders ranked Singapore as 144th out of 173 surveyed countries in terms of freedom of the press.[29] The Singapore Government said it is not ashamed of its low rank for press freedom because it has achieved top ratings for economic freedom and prosperity.[30] Instead of subscribing to the Western press model, it believes that a non-adversarial press can report accurately and objectively. A recent Gallup poll found that 69% of Singaporeans trusted their media.[31]

On 30 June 2006, blogger mrbrown wrote an article, titled "TODAY: S'poreans are fed, up with progress!", for his weekly opinion column in Today newspaper concerning the rising income gap and costs of living in Singapore.[32] Three days later, on 3 July, an official from the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts published a response letter on the same newspaper calling mrbrown a "partisan player" whose views "distort the truth".[33] On 6 July, the newspaper suspended his column.[34] Fellow blogger Mr Miyagi subsequently resigned from his column for Today. This was followed by Today newspaper chief executive and editor-in-chief Mano Sabnani's resignation in November 2006. The action fuelled anger over the Internet due to the perceived heavy-handedness action taken by the government over criticisms.[35]

Foreign publications[edit]

The MDA requires importers to "ensure that the publications/ audio materials brought in for distribution do not feature content which could be considered objectionable on moral, racial or religious grounds, or deemed detrimental to Singapore's national interests".[36] According to the MDA, more than 2 million publications and 300,000 audio materials are imported into Singapore each year under the Registered Importers Scheme.[36]

Foreign publications that carry articles the government considers slanderous, including The Economist and the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER), have been subjected to defamation suits and/or had their circulations "gazetted" (restricted). The sale of Malaysian newspapers in Singapore is prohibited;[37] a similar ban on the sale of newspapers from Singapore applies in Malaysia.

In August 2006, the government announced a tightening of rules on foreign publications previously exempt from the media code. Newsweek, Time, the Financial Times, the Far Eastern Economic Review and the International Herald Tribune will be required to appoint a publisher's representative in Singapore who could be sued, and to pay a security deposit of S$200,000. The move comes after FEER published an interview with Singaporean opposition leader Chee Soon Juan,[38] who claimed that leading members of the Singaporean government had "skeletons in their closets". On 28 September 2006, FEER was banned for failing to comply with conditions imposed under the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act.[39]

Pornography is strictly prohibited in Singapore; this encompasses magazines such as Playboy or Penthouse. However, magazines which are deemed to contain "mature content" such as Cosmopolitan Magazine are free to be distributed at all stores with a "Unsuitable for the young" label on its cover.

In December 2008, a Singaporean couple was charged with sedition for distributing the Chick tracts The Little Bride and Who Is Allah?, said "to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between Christians and Muslims in Singapore".[40][41]


Further information: Broadcasting in Singapore

The state-owned MediaCorp controls all free-to-air terrestrial local TV channels licensed to broadcast in Singapore, as well as 14 radio channels. Both free-to-air and pay television channels are available on cable, but the popular HBO series Sex and the City was not permitted to be shown in Singapore until 2004, after its original run had ended. Private ownership of satellite dishes is illegal, though international TV broadcasts (such as CNN, BBC, Fox News Channel etc.) are available on Starhub TV and SingTel IPTV service mio TV.

The Media Development Authority, through its Programme Advisory Committees for each of the four official languages,[42] constantly monitors and provides feedback on broadcast content. Permissible content on Singaporean TV is minutely regulated by the MDA's Free-to-Air Television Programme Code.[43]

Part 5 of the Code states that TV programs "should not in any way promote, justify or glamorise" homosexuality in any form.[43] MediaCorp has been fined repeatedly for violations of this, most recently in April 2008 for showing an episode of Home and Design that depicted a gay couple.[44] In February 2008, the Academy Awards acceptance speech for the short documentary Freeheld was censored by Mediacorp in the rebroadcast of the program due to the filmmakers' mention of equal rights for same sex couples.[45]

Part 7 of the Code states that "Gratuitous and graphic portrayals of violence, such as cutting up body parts and spurting of blood, should be avoided.",[43] and that programs "should not glamorise or in any way promote persons ... who engage in any criminal activity".[43] Local productions thus typically avoid depicting the local police or military personnel as victims of violence, resulting in predictable storylines considered "ethically correct". The police, for example, are increasingly shown to rarely succumb to graphic violence or other unfortunate events, and even if they do, are typically shown to prevail ultimately, as depicted in police dramas Triple Nine and Heartlanders.

Part 12.3 of the Code states that use of the local English-based creole Singlish "should not be encouraged and can only be permitted in interviews, where the interviewee speaks only Singlish."[43] The popular Singlish sitcom Phua Chu Kang was singled out in a National Day rally speech.[46] The Programmes Advisory Committee for English TV and Radio Programmes also singled out the use of Singlish in local sitcoms in its 2005 annual report, saying they "contain excessive Singlish" and "this should be avoided as it could give the wrong impression, especially among the young, that Singlish is the standard of spoken English in Singapore"[47]

Part 12.4 of the Code states that "All Chinese programmes, except operas or other programmes specifically approved by the Authority, must be in Mandarin."[43] The Cantonese used by popular TV serials from Hong Kong had to be dubbed into Mandarin, while local television series or programmes may not use dialects. Similarly, local newspapers were not allowed to carry listings for Malaysia's TV3, which showed programmes in Cantonese. However, Hong Kong's TVB, broadcasting in Cantonese, is now available on cable.

The latest annual report by the Advisory Committee for Chinese Programmes, for instance, chastised dramas such as Beyond the aXis of Truth 2 (police thriller on the supernatural) and Wing of Desire (contemporary family-feud drama) for graphic violence, while giving credit to A Promise For Tomorrow, A New Life, A Child's Hope, and so on, for the "positive messages" transmitted.[48] Hence, locally-produced dramas in recent decades are overwhelmingly family-based, with action-thrillers generally avoided.

As of September 2010, Singapore relaxed television broadcast guidelines allowing Pay TV operators to screen NC16, M18 and R21 films containing explicit content on Video-on-Demand (VOD) services.[9]


Internet services provided by the three major Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are subject to regulation by the Media Development Authority (MDA), which blocks 100 "symbolic"[49] websites such as Playboy and YouPorn. Since 8 October 2014, online gambling has been regulated in Singapore.[50]

Government agencies have been known to use or threaten to use litigation against bloggers and other Internet content providers. The first instance of such activity was against Sintercom in July 2001 when the founder, Dr Tan Chong Kee was asked to register the website under the nascent Singapore Broadcast Authority Act (now Media Development Authority). Dr Tan chose to shutdown Sintercom due to concerns over the ambiguity of the Act. In April 2005, a blogger, Chen Jiahao, then a graduate student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, was made to apologise and shut down his blog containing criticisms on government agency A*STAR, after its chairman Philip Yeo threatened to sue for defamation. In September 2005, 3 people were arrested and charged under the Sedition Act for posting racist comments on the Internet. Two were sentenced to imprisonment.[51] Later, the Teachers' Union announced that it is offering legal assistance to teachers who want to take legal action against students who defame them on their blogs, after five students from Saint Andrew's Junior College were suspended for three days for allegedly "flaming" two teachers and a vice-principal on their blogs.[52]

In the last few years, the government has taken a much tougher stand on Internet-related matters, including censorship. Proposed amendments to the Penal Code intend to hold Internet users liable for "causing public mischief", and give the authorities broader powers in curtailing freedom of speech.[35]

In September 2008, US citizen Gopalan Nair was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment for insulting a public servant after he accused a Singapore judge of "prostituting herself" in his blog.[53]

Starting 1 June 2013 the Media Development Authority requires sites "that report regularly on issues relating to Singapore and have significant reach" among website visitors in Singapore to apply for individual licenses, which will be subject to annual renewal. These websites must then post a "performance bond" of 50,000 Singapore dollars and remove any objectionable content within 24 hours of receiving a government order.[54] On 14 June 2013 the Asia Internet Coalition responded.[55]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ "Media Development Authority – Licences". Mda.gov.sg. Retrieved 16 December 2012. 
  2. ^ a b "Media Development Authority – Broadcast, Publications and Arts Appeal Committee". Mda.gov.sg. 15 November 2006. Retrieved 16 December 2012. 
  3. ^ "Media Development Authority – Films Appeal Committee". Mda.gov.sg. Retrieved 16 December 2012. 
  4. ^ "Media Development Authority – Censorship Review Committee". Mda.gov.sg. Retrieved 16 December 2012. 
  5. ^ "Government's Response to CRC Report". App.mica.gov.sg. Retrieved 16 December 2012. 
  6. ^ http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_legdisp.pl?actno=1998-REVED-107&date=20060115&method=whole&doctitle=
  7. ^ "Film festival director about censorship in Singapore". World Socialist website. 24 April 2000.  By Richard Phillips. (Posted on www.singapore-window.org)
  8. ^ a b "MICA Press Releases & Speeches". App.mica.gov.sg. Retrieved 16 December 2012. 
  9. ^ a b "AFP: Singapore relaxes censorship of television sex and violence". Google. 29 September 2010. Retrieved 16 December 2012. 
  10. ^ a b Lui, John (31 July 2013). "A louder uncensored discourse on censorship". The Straits Times (Singapore Press Holdings). Retrieved 2 October 2014. 
  11. ^ "9 Films Banned in Singapore". Singapore Press Holdings. AsiaOne. Oct 1, 2010. Retrieved 2 October 2014. 
  12. ^ Tan, Quancai Eugene. "One Rule to Rule Them All: a Study of Singapore Censorship". SGNewWave. Retrieved 2 October 2014. 
  13. ^ "Why MDA reclassified racially satirical movie". The Straits Times. 19 October 2012. Retrieved 11 January 2013. 
  14. ^ Brown, Todd (16 October 2012). "Singapore's SEX. VIOLENCE. FAMILYVALUES Banned For Racial Content". Twitchfilm.com. Retrieved 11 January 2013. 
  15. ^ Mahtani, Shibani (23 October 2012). "Singapore Bans Film, Director Vows Appeal". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 11 January 2013. 
  16. ^ "Producers of Sex.Violence.FamilyValues to appeal MDA decision". Asiaviews.org. 17 October 2012. Retrieved 11 January 2013. 
  17. ^ "Banned Film Gets New Life in Singapore". The Wall Street Journal. (15 January 2013).
  18. ^ "Sex.Violence.FamilyValues given R21 rating with edits". TODAYonline. Retrieved 11 January 2013. 
  19. ^ Tan, Jeanette (13 March 2012). "Ban on 'Sex.Violence.FamilyValues' lifted, movie given R21 rating". Yahoo! News. Retrieved 11 January 2013. 
  20. ^ Mokhtar, Faris (10 September 2014). "The Media Development Authority (MDA) says the film is not allowed for all ratings as contents undermine national security.". Channel NewsAsia. Retrieved 10 September 2014. 
  21. ^ "Martyn See's "Singapore Rebel" film gets green light : Channel NewsAsia". Singapore-window.org. 12 September 2009. Retrieved 16 December 2012. 
  22. ^ a b "Singapore upholds Janet Jackson ban". BBC News. 5 June 2001. Retrieved 28 April 2010. 
  23. ^ "Singapore introduces video games classifications system". Media Development Authority. 27 April 2008. 
  24. ^ Salil Tripathi (14 December 2002). "Artistic ambitions don't play well in uptight Singapore". New Statesman. 
  25. ^ "Government bans stage play on death penalty, censors artwork". Southeast Asian Press Alliance. 6 December 2005. 
  26. ^ "Singapore bans play for negative portrayal of Muslims". Reuters. 5 August 2006. 
  27. ^ [1][dead link]
  28. ^ Gomez, James (2000). Self-Censorship: Singapore's Shame. Singapore: Think Centre. ISBN 981-04-1739-X. 
  29. ^ Reporters Without Borders (2008). "Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2008". Retrieved 21 January 2009. 
  30. ^ "Singapore not ashamed of low rank for press freedom". Reuters. 31 October 2005. 
  31. ^ "Risks in having free press". News.asiaone.com. 6 November 2010. Retrieved 16 December 2012. 
  32. ^ "TODAY: S'poreans are fed, up with progress!". Today. 30 June 2006. 
  33. ^ "Letter from MICA: Distorting the truth, mr brown?". Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts, Singapore. 3 July 2006. 
  34. ^ Daily newspaper Today sacks blogger "mr brown" after government criticism, Reporters Without Borders, 6 July 2006
  35. ^ a b "Mixing welfare and elitism in Singapore", Alex Au, Asia Times Online, 23 November 2006
  36. ^ a b "Media Development Authority – Imported Publications". Mda.gov.sg. Retrieved 16 December 2012. 
  37. ^ Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, Sec. 22. "Permit required for sale and distribution in Singapore of newspapers printed or published in Malaysia" 22. —(1) No newspaper printed in Malaysia shall be published, sold, offered for sale or distributed in Singapore unless the proprietor of the newspaper or his agent has previously obtained and there is in force a permit granted by the Minister authorising the publication, sale or distribution of the newspaper in Singapore, which permit the Minister may in his discretion grant, refuse or revoke, or grant subject to conditions to be endorsed thereon.
  38. ^ "Singapore tightens rules on some foreign media". Agence France-Presse. 4 August 2006. 
  39. ^ Nesa Subrahmaniyan (28 September 2006). "Singapore Revokes Far Eastern Economic Review's Sales Permit". Bloomberg. 
  40. ^ "Breaking News". The Straits Times. Retrieved 16 December 2012. 
  41. ^ "Breaking News". The Straits Times. Retrieved 16 December 2012. 
  42. ^ [2][dead link]
  43. ^ a b c d e f [3][dead link]
  44. ^ "mda.gov: Free-to-air television programme code" (PDF). Retrieved 16 December 2012. 
  45. ^ "Mediacorp censors pro-gay speech, again at". Plu.sg. Retrieved 16 December 2012. 
  46. ^ "27 August 1999". Moe.gov.sg. Retrieved 16 December 2012. 
  47. ^ [4][dead link]
  48. ^ [5][dead link]
  49. ^ Lee, Melanie (23 May 2008). "Singapore bans two porn websites in symbolic move". Reuters. 
  50. ^ "Internet Regulatory Framework". Mda.gov.sg. Retrieved 16 December 2012. 
  51. ^ "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2005", The United States Department of State. Retrieved 20 March 2006.
  52. ^ "Schools act against students for 'flaming' teachers on blogs", The Straits Times, page 1, 27 September 2005, by Sandra Davie and Liaw Wy-Cin.
  53. ^ "US blogger sentenced to three months in Singapore jail". Agence France-Presse. 18 September 2008.  AFP Report
  54. ^ The Wallstreet Journal Europe edition, Media & Marketing on 29 May 2013
  55. ^ 'Public letter dated June 14th, 2013 from the Asia Internet Coalition (AIC) to Ministry of Communications and Information of Singapore' on the website of the AIC (PDF)


  1. Terry Johal, "Controlling the Internet: The use of legislation and its effectiveness in Singapore (pdf file)", Proceedings, 15th Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia, Canberra, 2004.
  2. Gary Rodan, "The Internet and Political Control in Singapore (pdf file)" Political Science Quarterly 113 (Spring 1998)

External links[edit]