Banned in siam

Banned in siam

We look at the hot issue of censorship and its inconsistencies

SOCIAL & LIFESTYLE

Fah Tam Pan Din Soong, or Boundary, is the first film in Thailand to be banned, unbanned and then censored a bit.

Last Tuesday, a censorship panel attached to the Ministry of Culture deemed the documentary, which involves a crackdown on the 2010 red-shirt rally and the border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia, a threat to national security and bilateral relations and, thus, banned it. Then, the next day, the film's director was contacted by the censors to inform him that the initial ban was a "technical mistake".

According to censor office director Pradit Posew, only the main committee can issue a ban and the first panel who banned the film was only the sub-committee of the National Film and Video Board and they acted beyond their power. The main committee had no problem with it so they lifted the ban but gave it an 18-plus rating. However, the director agreed to their request to mute two seconds of ambient soundtrack which they deemed to be problematic. The film is just another example of things that must endure scrutiny in Thailand and this won't be the last time something gets banned or censored here.

But instead of waiting for the ministry to release guidelines on what we can and cannot see, we talked to people aged 20-30 years about what they think of censorship and banning in Thailand. Here's what we find out.

RESPONDENTS SPEAK: WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE WHOLE BAN-AND-THEN-UNBAN EPISODE OF FAH TAM PAN DIN SOONG?

"I disagree with the initial ban and the censoring on the film. From what I've read about the film, I think it could be an eye-opener for the audiences of both countries to hear both sides of the story regarding the dispute. I also believe people can use discretion when they watch films that contain sensitive matters."

- Montira Rungjirajittranon, 21, university student.

"I say no to banning and censorship. I feel like they are trying to control our right to interpret [such films] or express our opinions. Banning a movie implies they don't want us to think in ways they disapprove of. I think it's the audience's responsibility to use their brains, whether they agree with it or like it or not. It's not the government's job to tell us what we can express and not. "

- Junjira Nethan, 21, university student.

"I read that the film features people who actually live near the border. We don't usually get to hear about the direct impact this dispute has on them so I think people should be able to see the film if they want to."

- Rungarun Padungruk, 21, university student.

TOP 5 THINGS THAT PEOPLE THINK SHOULD BE BANNED

25% - Lakorn that promote negativities

As a national pastime, lakorn can be powerful and influential. Our respondents think impressionable children may imitate bad behaviours - women fighting over one man, adultery and envy - they see in lakorn.

24% - TV commercials for whitening products

Twenty-four per cent of our interviewees think these whitening ads promote unrealistic standards of beauty in which Thais are encouraged to have "radiant white" skin. They said these ads drive people to spend money on products and treatments in order to have fairer skin without concern for the long-term effects. They also think these ads perpetuate the false notion that light-skinned people fare better in different aspects of life than those who have darker skin.

"I don't have anything against beauty products personally. You can show a woman with really beautiful hair and skin and all that. But when you compare her with another person that doesn't have the supposedly ideal beauty, that's kind of low."

- Natee Meepreecha, 24, office worker.

22% - The use of Facebook tags to sell products

Tagging is usually a tool to include people who are in a picture you want to upload on Facebook or are related to it in some way. It's not a marketing tool to promote your products especially when it takes up space on someone else's wall, according to 22 per cent of people we spoke to.

15% - Sharing YouTube clips in which teenagers fight

It's like a Thai version of The Jerry Springer Show. Young girls fight and humiliate each other over boys or other reasons while their peers stand by, cheering and taking a video. However 15 per cent of people we interviewed aren't for this kind of entertainment.

"I feel these clips may inspire young people to seek fame through notoriety. They want to be known for bad things that they've done. Also, I think they can make people in general become desensitised to violence. Young people may think it's OK to settle conflicts through violence. It's disturbing that people stand by and take a video while these girls fight instead of trying to stop it."

- Chaninun Krobmoke, 24, university student.

14% - Use of actual footage or pictures of crime scenes in news reporting

Our respondents say they don't want disturbing images of accidents and crime scenes to be the first thing they wake up to.

WHAT SHOULD BE CENSORED?

Thai TV employs some level of censorship on images they deem inappropriate. We spotted some of these arguably inappropriate contents and asked people if they think these TV channels have done the right thing in blurring them.

Those who agree to blurring of certain things especially guns, smoking and drinking are concerned about the impact these things may have on impressionable and younger viewers since free-to-air TV is easily accessible to all and that parents aren't always there to give young ones advice.

Those who are vehemently opposed to censorship say that blurring images is futile since viewers know what they are even when they're obscured. Some also think that blurring serves as an accidental joke more than anything else. Some suggest putting up warnings or advisory labels at the bottom of the screen to help educate younger viewers on what's appropriate instead.

"I feel censorship is denying reality or what younger audiences would see or experience in the future. We shouldn't try to avoid it. There should be more talk about what is considered inappropriate instead."

- Bordin Ekkamolrueangchai, 23, marketing officer.

THINGS THAT SHOULD BE BANNED ACCORDING TO US

Banning by definition means prohibiting something through legal means and, although, we're just salary earners here at Guru, we can't help but think how much better life would be if these things were actually banned.

THAI BANS YOU MAY NOT KNOW ABOUT

Selling sex toys is prohibited by law. Offenders can face up to three years in jail and a B6,000 fine. Don't ask us why we see so many angry-looking sticks being sold by Sukhumvit vendors.

Drinking in a vehicle parked on the road could land you six months in jail and B10,000 in fine or both.

Unauthorised sale of Furbies is a no-no. They are considered classified toys, containing plastic and producing sound, which have to be approved by the authority first before being sold. Unauthorised sellers could face two years in jail and up to B1 million in fines.

CENSORSHIP THROUGH THE YEARS

We take a look at memorable bans and censorship on films and TV series in recent years.

TV series Sarawat Yai (1994) didn't get to air its last episode because the story deals with corruption within the police force despite its popularity among viewers. We wonder why.

A comedy film called Woak Wak (2004) features a lot of politician lookalikes and well-known Thai comedians. Some characters are perceived to be direct mockeries of former PM Thaksin and his son. Some scenes got cut before it was released.

TV series Ta Du Dao Tao Tid Din (Eyes to Sky, Feet on Ground) (2005) is based on the life of Thaksin Shinawatra. It was criticised as potential propaganda to make Thaksin even more popular. It was due to be broadcast on Channel 7 but that hasn't happened to this day.

Directed by Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Syndromes and a Century (2007) won awards at film festivals outside the country and was due to be shown in Thailand in April 2007. However, the censor board deemed that four scenes could potentially portray doctors and Buddhist monks badly. The troubling scenes include a monk playing a guitar, doctors drinking in a hospital, a doctor being visibly aroused after kissing his girlfriend and monks playing with a flying toy.

Insects in the Backyard (2010) is directed by Tanwarin Sukkhapisit and it was banned because it was deemed deeply immoral by the censor board. It was the first film to be banned after the film ratings came into effect. The director intended the film to be for viewers of 20 years or older as it deals with heavy subject matter. It features images of penises, sexual intercourse and prostitution.

TV soap Nua Mek 2 (2011) got pulled off the air by Channel 3 because "some content was deemed inappropriate for airing". The current government said they had no part in the decision. No clear explanation has ever been provided by the channel but we think it has something to do with the fictional political game of the series and a corrupt politician who recruits the help of a sorcerer to obtain a satellite concession. Too real, eh?

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT