Parliament passes changes to Films Act, expanded powers given to IMDA officers

SINGAPORE — Changes to the Films Act were passed in Parliament on Wednesday (March 21), but not before six Members of Parliament (MPs) sought greater clarity on the extent and limits of new powers given to officers from the Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA).

The film community here raised concerns about these “invasive powers” last December, after proposals were made to allow IMDA, instead of the police, to conduct enforcement and investigations of all offences under the Films Act.

With the latest changes, IMDA officers will soon have the power to enter and search without warrant not just obscene and unclassified films, but also films prohibited by the Minister for Communications and Information on grounds of public interest, as well as the unlicensed public screening of films. They can also take statements from people as part of an investigation.

The Ministry of Communication and Information (MCI) targets to roll out the changes in the second half of the year.

Nominated MP Kok Heng Leun told the House during the debate on Wednesday: “Fundamentally, I believe that such sweeping and intrusive power should only be granted by the police who are the custodians of law and order.

“Moreover, I am concerned that we are giving too much power to enforcement officers who, compared to our police, might not have the operational experience and expertise to effectively discharge such powers.”

Non-Constituency MP Daniel Goh from the Workers’ Party also asked Communications and Information Minister Yaacob Ibrahim to clarify that these powers would “indeed be used in the spirit of exception, as a nuclear option of last resort when speed is the essence in securing evidence of the offence committed”.

In response, Dr Yaacob said that the IMDA, as Singapore’s infocomms media authority, is “best-placed to enforce” the Films Act: “It has the necessary domain expertise, and its officers also understand and appreciate the work of the media and film industry.”

He also said that this frees the police to focus on law and order, and other threats to security. “I believe this approach is in the best interest of both the films industry and Singaporeans,” he added.

SECURING EVIDENCE

Dr Yaacob stressed that such without-warrant powers will only be used if a “prima facie case” is established — when there is reasonable grounds to suspect that a serious offence has been or is being committed, or that evidence of the commission of these offences can be found in the premises and it is necessary to secure it from being concealed, lost or destroyed.

This is particularly useful in enforcing unlicensed public exhibition, where “the risk and ease of flight is high” as a screening typically lasts two hours or less, he said.

Only items used to commit the offence would be seized, Dr Yaacob added. For example, the storage medium where the film is kept is likely to be seized in unlicensed public screening cases, but not the projector or the exhibitor’s mobile phone. “IMDA’s interest would only be on materials that serve as evidence.”

Dr Yaacob also pointed out that the extension of powers is limited to “serious offences”, intended for films with the “most egregious content”, including films that “threaten racial or religious harmony, the broader fabric of our society or public confidence in our institutions”.

Only two of such films had been prohibited so far, MP Chee Hong Tat said, and they are Zahari’s 17 years (in 2007) and Dr Lim Hock Siew (in 2010).

Mr Chee, who is also Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information, said that they gave “distorted and misleading” portrayals of the arrests of former Internal Security Act detainees Lim Hock Siew and Said Zahari in 1963 due to their involvement in “communist activities”.

Proposed changes to this part of the Films Act — originally drafted to allow IMDA officers to search without warrant all offences — prompted filmmaker Jason Soo to start a petition that drew 750 signatures, while 50 filmmakers, including prominent directors Jack Neo, Royston Tan, Boo Junfeng and Anthony Chen, submitted a paper on the same matter.

After a public consultation, the MCI made several adjustments, such as confining the extended enforcement powers to more serious offences, exercised by officers who are trained by the Home Affairs Ministry’s Home Team.

FILMS AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY

Among the amendments to the Films Act is also one giving the Communications and Information Minister the final say on appeals involving films with national security concerns.

Asked what a film against national security is, Dr Yaacob said that the considerations include whether it is detrimental to the continued existence of the country, its ability to exercise its sovereign rights, and the safety and security of its citizens and their way of life.

The minister is better placed to decide on such appeals because he would have the necessary security clearance to consider “detailed assessment” from security agencies on such matters.

The lack of change to provisions for party political films also drew some debate, with Mr Kok asking why the making and reproduction of such films would remain an offence, while Associate Professor Daniel Goh asked if the State’s norms regarding politics in films have evolved.

Noting that the provisions introduced in 1998 were amended in 2009 to exempt and allow political films that are factual and objective, Dr Yaacob said that the MCI is of the view that the category “remain relevant”, given the impact they could have on the integrity of elections here, as well as broader political discourse.

“Film is not an ideal medium for political debate,” he said. “Serious political issues could be sensationalised or distorted to evoke emotional rather than rational reactions. Films also do not allow for effective rebuttals and there is a risk that political debates on serious matters could be reduced to a contest where parties and candidates promote themselves, attack others, or mislead voters through slick commercials and slanted presentations.”

In other changes, an optional co-classification scheme will be “formalised” to allow employees from selected video companies to be trained by the IMDA as film content assessors. They can then classify films up to a PG13 rating. This scheme was piloted since 2011 for video distribution, and since 2015 for film screenings.