PRESS AND FILM CENSORSHIP IN COLONIAL SINGAPORE 1915-1959

Abstract

This is the study of the role and patterns of media censorship in colonial Singapore. The media chosen for this study are files and the press. The definition of press censorship here covers not only the control of newspapers and periodicals, but also that of printing presses and publications in general. A study of the films and publications banned and portions deleted gives a fairly clear indication of the norms of censorship. These norms reveal to the researcher the identity of the ideas from inside and outside the country which were looked by the British as threats to colonial rule. The core chapters in this study are divided to reflect three main reasons for censorship - political, religious and moral. The time-frame for the study is from 1915 to 1959. In 1915, the colonial authorities faced its first anti-British political agitatioin. The year also saw the formulation of a new press law. This formal press control measure was a departure from the government's pre-1915 low-key informal policy on the media. This study of colonial censorship ends in 1959, the year when Singapore attained internal self-government. Although the issues and details are related to one country, it is anticipated that the shifting rationale for interference with printed opinion and visual messages, and the mechanisms developed for exercising that control have universal implications. The intended method of research was to obtain a handlist of surviving banned material and then moved back to the records to piece together why and how works were seized. This was not possible as neither the Archives, National Library or Ministry of Communication and Information hold such a handlist. The researcher turned to the Government Gazettes, but these only indicate titles of films or books banned. Gerald Barrier's Banned: Controversial literature and Political Control in British India was indeed helpful. Books banned under the Seditious Publications' list in Singapore were likewise banned in India. Barrier's book is useful as it provides brief summaries of these controversial writings. Access to materials of the Special Branch and Political Intelligence Department would have been immensely useful, but these were not released for academic research. Their general reports, however, supply information on the type of literature circulated. I hope I have done the topic justice given the time, space and source materials available.