7:22 p.m. - 2003-10-16
The Academie Series: Film Analysis

This is another part from the Academie Series. A

series of essays demanded by school and then placed here as collateral for

knowledge used and drained. Read on, my fellow hairy academics. I wear thick

specs too and my mustache is itchy.

Film as political commentary in

Singapore

Film has always been a powerful

tool of communication; filmmakers have used it to give life to their fantasies,

stories and myths, but some have also used the medium of film to voice their

opinions and perspectives about lives or the events happening around them. As an

amalgamation of a culture�s fears, hopes and dreams, it can be said that films

hold a certain truth in reflecting the society in which they are produced.

Politics in Singapore is a

serious issue. It permeates all aspects of our lives, deciding where and how we

live, from the economic aspects of survival, to matters like laws and

regulations; the effect in totality can even be regarded as having an important

influence on our basic human strive towards self-actualisation. The climate of

public discourse about politics has always been strict and rigid, with the

ruling party of the Singapore government setting the boundaries and agenda of

what is to be publicly discussed. The press and broadcasting mediums are

dominated by companies linked to the State and thus under political economy

perspectives, where the elite class has dominant control over cultural and

ideological production centres, open criticism of governmental policies seems to

be muted to a certain extent.

Interestingly,

in this closed political circuit, several films with quite political content

have emerged, with narratives and characters that not only satirise and poke fun

at government figures, but also raise certain socio-political issues at the same

time. This process can be seen as a form of popular resistance against the

dominant ideological discourse of national stability in the economic and

cultural realms.

In

this study, there will be an examination of a few �politically-critical�

Singaporean films made in recent years, (issues and examples would be taken from

Money No Enough, Where Got Problem, I Not Stupid, Talkingcock

the Movie, 12 Storeys); studying their various political and social

�barbs�. In addition, this study also attempts to place the films under a

socio-historical context. It is believed that the culture of a society

influences the media texts that emerge from it, and vice versa.

In

the final part of this study, the general comedic genre of some politically and

socially �critical� local films will be compared with the arthouse genre of

Eric Khoo�s 12 Storeys, as the ideologies the films carry are quite

different. The trend of comedy in local films could be seen as a commercial

strategy or a shrewd way by local filmmakers to buffer their criticisms under

laughter, thus escaping censorship (either by the official censor board,

corporate investors or self-censorship, commonly practiced in Singapore).

 

Some Common Political and Social Criticisms featured

in Singaporean Films

The Definition

of Success in Singapore

In

the Singapore21 report, it is acknowledged that the definition of success in the

Singaporean society has been narrowly defined by two terms: material success and

academic success (to be elaborated under the next heading). Indeed, material

success is one of the most obvious themes in many Singaporean films. In films

like Money No Enough (1998) and Where Got Problem (1999),

the main characters of the show encounter various financial troubles of

their own, plunging from a state of well-being and prosperity into a period of

struggle, buying 4D, owing debts to loansharks and then trying to find means and

ways to rise out of �poverty�. Invariably, the plot of these films revolve

around money and the dire economic situation reflective of the period when these

films were made - the Asian Economic Crisis in 1998.

The

desire for a higher standard of living, coupled with status, is often presented

as the main motivation that drives characters in these films. Interestingly, as

presented in both Money No Enough and Where Got Problem, the

husband is portrayed as the breadwinner of the family and the main character

whose relationship with the wife is strained as a result of financial

difficulties. It can be seen that the family is an important social unit of

patriarchal Singaporean society, but it disintegrates under the strain of

economic obstacles. This emphasizes the importance of financial stability in

marriage and Singaporean life.  

As

a further critique on our fixation with success in the economic realm, the plot

of the films stress the importance of family over economic concerns. This is

portrayed in Where Got Problem, when the family reunites after they

realise that living out of the laps of luxury and status is not the be-all and

end-all of their lives and that their marriage is more important.

On

another note, the image of success in Singapore (tall banking buildings, city

bustle, shopping paradise, etc) has been challenged by the bleak and drab images

of the HDB landscape in 12 Storeys (Eric Khoo, 1997). In the

opening sequence of 12 Storeys, the montage of slow images with moody

violins stirring in the background creates a sense of defamiliarisation within

the audience, provoking us to look closer, into the lives of the inhabitants

within a HDB block, perhaps questioning the fa�ade of economic success that

mainstream media presents.

One

of the striking images within that sequence is that of construction cranes in

the midst of buildings; it presents Singapore as a city that is constantly

building and rebuilding itself, constantly striving to keep ahead of economic

competition. Like the title of Alfian Sa`at�s book A History of Amnesia,

Singapore seems to have forgotten its cultural past in its strive for economic

success; because the past inherent within many buildings and places have changed

with urban redevelopment, and with rapid speed. The sequence concludes with a

long wide-shot of a HDB block with its rows of uniform fluorescent lights

shining in the night, a telling symbol of sterility and emptiness.

The Education

System

Besides

economic success, academic success is also very highly regarded in Singapore.

According to a survey in a news report (Pressure-cooker education system put

to the test, AFP, Sept 15, 2002), 1 out of 3 children aged between 9 to 12,

in Singapore, feel that life is not worth living because of the fear of academic

failure.

This

fear of academic failure is clearly depicted in the film I Not Stupid

(2002), written and directed by Jack Neo. Three young schoolboys in the EM3[1]

stream find themselves being looked down by others and they try to improve

themselves. In this film, Jack Neo ingeniously presents several perspectives on

our education system.

The

opening pan shot of the barbed-wire fence around a school, with an accompanying

voice-over: �This is a prison we�ve all been through�� comically and

effectively sets the tone by which we can view the institution of education.

School, to the children, is a place where they are trapped and rules have to be

adhered. The motif of being trapped can be taken to other levels as well. The

schoolboys are trapped within an education system that categorises and

pigeonholes them, their path in life has been fixed at such a young age; they

are relegated to the blue-collar working life.

As

the film narrative progresses, the adults in the film are depicted as anxious

parents who are worried that their children will have no foothold in society in

the future because paper qualifications are highly regarded in Singapore. It is

also this anxiety for the narrow legitimate benchmarks of academic success

(English and Maths proficiency) that one of the boy�s parents overlooks her

son�s talent for drawing and canes him repeatedly for his lousy math grades.

Another

less obvious criticism of the education system within the film is the emphasis

on good grades. One of the schoolboys in the film, Ang Boon-Hock juggles

schoolwork, babysitting his brother and helping out at his mother�s footstall.

Despite being unfairly judged by others as stupid or useless, he continues to

work hard for his exams. It is a results-oriented education system that

overlooks the process of learning and places too much importance on examinations

and school grades.

Interestingly,

after the film I Not Stupid was released, there were some public

discussions about the state of children�s education in Singapore. There were

some news reports, surveys and discussions in the Straits Times Forum section

regarding the stress levels of today�s school kids and whether the streaming

system should be abolished or revised. This shows, to a certain extent, the

influence of media texts on culture and vice versa.

The

Paternalistic Government

The

Singapore government, with its various policies (economic interventions, social

engineering, etc) throughout the years, has considerable influence over

different dimensions of Singaporean life. There is the introduction of the

Central Provident Fund (CPF), which the government posits as a form of social

security to ensure that citizens can have enough financial resources for their

retirements. There is also the controversial eugenics policy in the 1980s.[2] 

The

government has introduced and enforced these various policies and schemes

throughout the years of nation-building with a soft but firm authoritarian hand

such that the total effect of such measures is that Singaporeans have come to

regard the government as rather paternalistic and also quite unbending.

This

relationship between Singaporeans and the government is clearly parodied in I

Not Stupid where Selena Tan�s character, Mrs Khoo, is always dressed in

white (in a clear reference to the all-white dress code of PAP members), and

always insists to her children that the things she does are �for your (their)

own good.�

In

this intertextual code of representation, the son, Terry, would represent

Singaporeans and Mrs Khoo, the government. It is quite telling that within the

film, Mrs Khoo lords over and pampers Terry, to such an extent that Terry has no

freedom in deciding his actions and thoughts. He is presented as quite dumb and

na�ve and constantly needs somebody to tell him what to do; the image of a

typical Singaporean?

Along

this play of government-citizen relationship as parent-child relationship within

the film, Jack Neo also manages to put in a few common criticisms about the

government. He uses the action of Mrs. Khoo taking away her children�s ang-pow

(red-packet) money within the narrative as a metaphor for CPF. As in real life

where there were discussions by citizens about the secrecy of the government in

withholding information about the use of CPF and foreign exchange reserves, Mrs

Khoo reiterates a reply similar to the government�s; when asked about the

money by her children, she says that they are too young to understand and what

she�s doing is for their own good.

In

fact, most of Mrs Khoo�s dialogue in the film is ingeniously written such that

they sound similar to statements made by the government over the years. There is

the part where she lectures Terry that he should not be kaypoh and meddle

in other people�s affairs. This sounds similar to the government�s reply to

citizens when some of them wanted to stage a demonstration to the Indonesian

authorities regarding the Indonesian riots in 1998. There is also the scene

where Mrs Khoo explains to her daughter that she might want freedom but she

cannot have it all at once but in gradual amounts. This is similar to the

situation when citizens try to argue for more freedom in the mass media and

other social facets.

In

a scene parallel to real-life, Mrs Khoo buys shoes for her teenage daughter and

effectively quells her dissent and dissatisfaction with her mother. This is

pointedly referenced as the issuing of New Singapore Shares by the government,

ahead of the elections, in order to soften the electorate.

It

is this parody of the government-citizen relationship within the film that

struck a chord in many Singaporeans. The Singaporean citizen is regarded as

obedient, and his obedience is to such an extent that he becomes undiscerning

and just a follower of instructions, as when Jack Neo teases the audience by

calling for them to clap at the start and end of the film.

Besides

this, I Not Stupid also has other barbed jibes about government policies

within its narrative.

In

a reference to the eugenics policy of the 1980s (introduced by then Prime

Minister Lee Kuan Yew), a hawker states that although he and his wife are

uneducated, they managed to produce a child who is in the Gifted stream and that

�some people�s words just don�t make sense�.

The Singaporean

as selfish, apathetic and apolitical

Within

the discourse of an unbending authoritarian government in Singaporean films,

there is the corresponding discourse of the selfish, apathetic and apolitical

Singaporean, the citizen that is only concerned with matters to do with his

economic livelihood and does not believe that he has any voice in political

matters.

In

Money No Enough, such a character (played by Mark Lee) scoffs when his

friend at the coffee-shop comments that citizens of another country are burning

the Singapore flag and that they should do the same in return. Mark Lee and Jack

Neo�s characters snigger in that scene and go on to �educate� the

coffee-mate that the Singapore government would not appreciate such protests and

might even prosecute them. They go on to say that they have much more important

matters to attend to--- ala their economic survival.

In

12 Storeys, a suicide-case is met with a taxi-driver who promptly whips

out his notebook and pen to jot down numbers for 4D. It is such a natural

reaction. Meanwhile as passers-by group around the fallen body, a man shouts at

them to call the ambulance. Receiving no reply from the gawking crowd, he scowls

and runs off to call. Later we see the taxi-driver with his group of friends at

the coffee-shop, discussing the suicide offhandedly. Life goes on.

Hence,

the stereotype of the Singaporean is often subsumed under the discourse of the

rat race for economic status as a character that has no motivation to

participate in his/her community and worse still, he/she thinks that it is

futile to debate with the government in matters concerning his/her life.

The

Marginalisation of Languages

The

issue of language is one of the most debated matters in Singaporean films. In

1979, the �Speak more Mandarin, Use less Dialects�[3]

campaign was launched and since then the use of dialects have been slowly phased

out in the mass media. According to the 2003 Censorship Review Committee report,

films and broadcast media are not allowed to use dialects other than in

exceptional circumstances. These measures to achieve bilingualism within the

Chinese community have not been without its costs, for the problem of

intergenerational cultural transmission arises.

Although

the �Speak Mandarin� campaign has been successful within the younger

generations of Chinese Singaporeans today, the much older generation still

persist in using dialects within their daily lives. It is this gap between the

official ideology of a single Chinese language and the popular resistance of

dialects on the streets that might account for the success of Money No Enough

when it exploded into the media scene in 1998, with its colourful and

entertaining Hokkien dialogue which certainly provided a refreshing and much

needed conduit of expression for Singaporean audiences. Since then, many other

filmmakers in Singapore have also tried to use dialects within their films to

give a sense of realism to their portrayal of characters. Films which have used

dialects include Where Got Problem, That One No Enough, 12 Storeys,

Talkingcock the Movie, to name a few�

Besides

the use of dialects within films, the issue of Singlish has also cropped up. The

Speak Good English Movement (SGEM) was launched in 2000 to encourage

Singaporeans to speak proper English and in a parody of this campaign, Talkingcock

the Movie featured a Good English Inspector (curiously dressed in all-white

too) who criticises and harangues the use of Singlish and various dialects

within the film, to the laughter of audiences.

Besides

these various comic pot shots at the government, films have also tried to

present the marginalisation of languages with gravity. In I Not Stupid,

there is a Chinese teacher who tries to explain to her jaded students the

importance of learning Chinese; she says that it encapsulates a whole culture

and its roots. Interestingly, this scene was intercut with another scene in the

film where the head of an advertising firm was trying to explain to the

Caucasian creative director, the economic importance of grasping the Chinese

language in order to enter the booming China market. Ironically, to speak and

persuade Singaporeans, one can only speak in the terms that they understand:

economics.

Rigid

Laws and Bureaucracy

Singapore

is well known for its strict laws and hefty fines. According to Amnesty

International�s 2002 Human Rights report on Singapore, �the

threats of potentially ruinous civil defamation suits against opponents of the

PAP continued to inhibit political life and engendered a climate of

self-censorship. The Internal Security Act (ISA) and other restrictive

legislation remained in place, thus continuing to allow for indefinite detention

without trial and undermining the rights to freedom of expression and

assembly.�

In

addition, the judicial punishments were also criticised for being cruel:

�caning, which constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment, remained

mandatory for some 30 crimes, including attempted murder, rape, armed robbery,

drug trafficking, illegal immigration offences and vandalism. It was not known

how many sentences were carried out during the year. Under the law, caning may

be imposed on juvenile offenders.�

In

this system, local films have tried to highlight the seemingly contradictory

moves by the authorities to remake Singapore as a creative Arts hub while

regulating the people�s efforts. In I Not Stupid, the frustration of

the creative artists in the ad company was highlighted with a Caucasian asking a

rhetorical question about the government wanting to promote creativity but

setting up language and content barriers. In this scene, Jack Neo also cracks a

joke about the apathy and silence of Singaporeans regarding the situation. He

says that its hard to fish in Singapore because the fishes are like

Singaporeans: they never open their mouths, even if they die (loose direct

translation).

Singapore�s

draconian laws were also briefly pointed out in the film. In the concluding

parts of the film, the Chinese labourer remarks in surprise that he does not

know that kidnapping is a capital offence (punishable by death) in Singapore.

The cold satiric reply from the policeman: ignorance of the law is not an

excuse.

Besides

rigid laws in Singapore, the bureaucratic system was also parodied in another

film, Chicken Rice War. A goofy-looking official in thick spectacles,

representing the Hawkers Board of Singapore, explained the placement of two

chicken rice stalls side by side in the same hawker centre. In the short scene,

he speaks briefly in government-speak and smiles candidly, offering no

resolution to the conflict. His reaction can be taken as a critique of the aloof

and bureaucratic civil servant.

Foreign

talent

The

issue of foreign talent has only come up in recent Singaporean films, probably

reflecting the social mood of some unemployed Singaporeans who feel that jobs

are being unfairly taken over by foreigners during the economic downturn. It is

interesting to note that foreign talent has always been present in Singapore. In

the 1980s, it was termed as foreign investment through multinationals setting up

businesses in Singapore. It is only recently that the term �foreign talent�

was coined and used, by Ministers and the press.

Besides

giving voice to the people�s fears about the loss of jobs, the post-colonial

attitudes of people towards foreign talent was also highlighted in I Not

Stupid. The Caucasian employee is promoted and championed over the local

employee and the client seeking ideas for his ad satirically celebrates the Ang-moh�s

ideas over the local guy�s, saying, �Ang-moh�s ideas are always

good�, even when both of their ideas are essentially the same.

On

another note, local films have also tried to present a social perspective on

foreigners in Singapore.

There

is the Chinese national who loses his job and cannot afford to go back home in I

Not Stupid.

And

in 12 Storeys, there is the woman from China who married a Singaporean

husband in order to come to Singapore for a better life but is disillusioned

when she finds out that her husband is not as successful as he said he was.

This

narrative thread in both films highlight the dreams that many foreign labourers

and immigrants have about coming to Singapore to lead a better life. Considering

the inevitable impact on local culture, I feel that the representation of

foreigners living in Singapore would become increasingly prevalent as their

percentage populations increase.

Political

Commentary and the Singaporean Comedy

Considering

the way the various social and political issues are raised in Singapore films,

it can be argued that they are usually introduced as side jokes without given

much further discussion in the narratives. Hence, although issues are raised,

they are also quickly laughed off as jokes. Tension and contemplation of the

issues is never allowed under the fast moving narrative.

Looking

at Money No Enough and I Not Stupid and considering how the

state of equilibrium within the narrative is achieved at the end, we can perhaps

derive a notion of the dominant ideologies within the films.

In

Money No Enough, Jack Neo�s character loses his job because his boss

promoted an English-speaking, higher-educated person, forcing him to quit in

anger. Then later in the end, he manages to succeed through his entrepreneurial

efforts. And in I Not Stupid, the 3 schoolboys flounder under the

pressure of their studies but at the end they are still in the EM3 stream

although the tone and mood of the film has risen above its initial gloom.

In

both films, the negatives of the system and structure of Singapore society is

critiqued briefly but in the end, it is not an overhaul or change of the system

that occurs but human agency that is stressed to be the solution. It is no fault

of the materialistic and results-driven system. Jack Neo�s character falls

because he himself is rash and he rises in the end because he knows how to be

flexible in the new economy. In I Not Stupid, harmony is achieved because

the parents of the boys realised that they should not push their children too

hard. However the kids are still stuck in the EM3 stream.

It

seems that the films have just provided the �illusion of change� as

expounded in Gramsci�s theory of hegemony where �despite being an

exploitative relationship, the subjugated classes permit themselves to be ruled.

There is, apparently, constant give and take, the dominated classes are offered

sufficient incentives to avoid direct confrontation and the illusion of possible

change is maintained.� (The Media Book, pg. 234).

On

the other hand, Money No Enough and I Not Stupid are quite clearly

commercial films pitched at the mass market. To pitch an ideology that is

revolutionary might be extreme for local audiences to handle. It is the genre of

comedy that provides a useful veil for filmmakers to buffer their social or

political criticisms without alienating or offending audiences and the

establishment. Correspondingly, the strategy of using comedy to dilute

social/political criticism of the system can be regarded as a self-censorship

measure.

In

comparison, 12 Storeys, with its almost flat narrative of 3 stories in

one day of a HDB block, unfolds and ends without a resolution to its various

conflicts. The narrative develops without melodramatic ups and downs but at a

measured pace, almost like a documentary detailing the frustrations and

alienation of the characters.

As

noted in Jump Cut, a magazine about contemporary media, the unorthodoxies of

Khoo�s early films collectively undermine slickly packaged national myths

built with official clich�s such as �wholesome, clean, upgraded and upwardly

mobile,� and a country noted for �its affluence... discipline... skilled

workforce...[and] immaculate streets.�

To

put it in stark terms, Eric Khoo�s film 12 Storeys provides a

counter-discourse to the dominant ideology of Singapore as a successful

nation-state while Jack Neo�s two films are carnival-like stories which

celebrates the common man but does not challenge societal structures.

However,

considering the economic bottom lines of commercial films, it is perhaps

understandable that entertainment values sometimes override cultural critique.

The comedy genre appeals to a wider audience range than the art film. Hence,

although 12 Storeys was accepted in various overseas film festivals, its

artistic success does not translate into box office success in the local film

market.

But

all is not lost. The local comedy genre demands further exploration. Genres are

not fixed categories, they do change and shift with times. The local film scene

is still very much in its infancy and will develop further.

Who

knows? Arthouse elements fused with a dash of comedy equals black social satires

like Man Bites Dog. The audience is not a fixed entity. A better term to

use might be �audiences�. With time, and a gradual expansion of the public

sphere and cultural evolution in our community, the film industry would change.

And

considering the success of texts like Money No Enough and I Not Stupid,

which show that local audiences do readily accept films that contain

contemporary subject matters; films with a more enduring treatment of

social/political issues might emerge in the future.

The

End.

References:

Singapore

21 Report. (2003). Less Stressful Life vs Retaining the Drive.

Retrieved

Oct 13, 2003, from http://www.singapore21.org.sg/menu_subcom.html

Agence

France Presse. (2002, Sept 15). Pressure cooker education system put to the

test. 

Retrieved

Oct 13, 2003, from http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020915af.htm

Censorship

Review Committee Report. (2003)

Retrieved

Oct 13, 2003, from http://www.crc2002.gov.sg/doc/letters.pdf

Lee�s

Plea: Use Mandarin. (1979, Sept 8). The Straits Times.

Retrieved

Oct 12, 2003, from http://ourstory.asia1.com.sg/dream/edu/headline/eduh1.html

Amnesty

International Human Rights Report on Singapore. (2002, May 28).

Retrieved

Oct 12, 2003, from http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020528ai.htm

Tan,

S. K. & Lee, H. H. & Aw, A. (2003). Contemporary Singapore Filmmaking:

history, policies and Eric Khoo. Jump Cut (46).

Retrieved

Oct 11, 2003, from http://www.ejumpcut.org/currentissue/12storeys/index.html

Newbold,

C. & Boyd-Barrett, O. & Van den Bulck, H. (2002). The Media Book.

(pp 234). NY: Arnold.

Chong,

C. L. (1999) Intergenerational cultural transmission in Singapore: A brief

discussion

Retrieved

Oct 11, 2003, from http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla65/65cc-e.htm

Speak

Good English Movement. (2002).

Available:

http://www.goodenglish.org.sg/sgemsite/default.htm

Love

HK Film.com. (2002) I Not Stupid.

Retrieved

Oct 10, 2003, from http://www.lovehkfilm.com/panasia/i_not_stupid.htm

Hutchinson

Encyclopaedia. (2003). Eugenics.

Retrieved

Oct 10, 2003, from http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0008004.html

Singapore

Press Holdings. (1999). Headlines, Lifelines: Education.

Retrieved

Oct 10, 2003, from http://ourstory.asia1.com.sg/dream/edu/edu.html

Lim,

A. (unknown). Film and Television in Singapore: Economic development and

Media policies.

Retrieved Oct 10,

2003, from http://www.geocities.com/adeylim/research.html

previous - next