Undesirable Publications Act

Last updated
Undesirable Publications Act 1967
Old Parliament House 4, Singapore, Jan 06.JPG
Old Parliament House, photographed in January 2006
Parliament of Singapore
  • An Act to prevent the importation, distribution or reproduction of undesirable publications and for purposes connected therewith.
CitationAct 3 of 1967
Enacted by Parliament of Singapore
Enacted1967
Status: In force

The Undesirable Publications Act 1967 (UPA) is a Singapore statute which, according to its long title, prevents the importation, distribution, or reproduction of undesirable publications and for purposes associated in doing so. The Act, which was passed in 1967 empowers the Government of Singapore in incriminating and punishing both individuals and corporates that are involved in the sale, supply, exhibition, or distribution of obscene and objectionable publications.

Contents

Overview

The UPA looks after matters relating to the importation, distribution or reproduction of undesirable publications. [1] Together with the Penal Code, Films Act and the Children and Young Persons Act, the UPA law also seeks to protect all persons, including children, from being exploited for pornography especially child pornography. [2] Under the UPA, it may be a punishable offence to make, sell or distribute objectionable publications, including calendars. [3]

Other than pornography, [4] objectionable publication that may also fall under the jurisdiction of the UPA include those that offend racial and religious harmony on the island, e.g. hate speech. [5] If a work concerns any race or religion in a certain manner such that feelings of enmity, hatred, or hostility were to be aroused, this very publication may be deemed objectionable as well. [6]

Anti-colonial and Communist material were once banned by the UPA, but the ban has since been lifted after a review by the Media Development Authority (MDA). [7] Review of gazetted publications are conducted in consultation with the Publications Consultative Panel, [8] whereas 17 publications, mostly pornographic that still remain officially prohibited in Singapore may include: [9]

  1. All publications by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society
  2. All publications by International Bible Students Association
  3. Playboy
  4. Swank
  5. Girls of Penthouse
  6. Gallery
  7. Elite
  8. Penthouse
  9. Men Only
  10. Genesis
  11. Playgirl
  12. Velvet
  13. Mayfair
  14. Fiesta
  15. Hustler
  16. Knave
  17. Cheri

A grey area of this law may be that of taking and keeping photos of oneself having sex. Taking photographs or videos of oneself having sex or of others without taking payment is not against the law, however, dissemination of such materials is an infringement of the UPA. [10]

Uses of the Act

Janet Jackson's 2001 album All for You was banned under the UPA over sexually explicit lyrics in one of the songs "Would You Mind". [11]

In 2004, Steve Chia of the National Solidarity Party was let off with a warning after being found in possession of an obscene film. [12]

In 2008, Ong Kian Cheong and Dorothy Chan Hien Leng were charged under both the Sedition Act and Undesirable Publications Act for allegedly distributing evangelistic publication titled The Little Bride [13] that cast Prophet Muhammad in negative light. [14]

In 2015, the government lifted the ban of 240 publications, including the 18th century erotic novel Fanny Hill or anti-colonial books. [15]

Taking part in an outdoor nude photo shoot may trigger the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act instead of the UPA, [16] as in the case of two tourists taking nude photographs at Sentosa in 2016. [17]

In 2017, Singapore banned nine books from a Singaporean preacher. [18]

In 2021, Cherian George's book, Red Lines: Political Cartoons and the Struggle against Censorship, was banned for reproducing materials that are offensive to religious feelings. [19]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Softcore pornography</span> Erotic still photography or film that is less sexually explicit than hardcore pornography

Softcore pornography or softcore porn is commercial still photography, film, or art that has a pornographic or erotic component but is less sexually graphic and intrusive than hardcore pornography, defined by a lack of visual sexual penetration. It typically contains nude or semi-nude actors involved in love scenes and is intended to be sexually arousing and aesthetically beautiful. The distinction between softcore pornography and erotic photography or art, such as Vargas girl pin-ups, is largely a matter of debate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pornography laws by region</span> Legality of pornography

Pornography laws by region vary throughout the world. The production and distribution of pornographic films are both activities that are lawful in many, but by no means in all countries, so long as the pornography features performers aged above a certain age, usually 18 years. Further restrictions are often placed on such material.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Obscene Publications Act 1959</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Obscene Publications Act 1959 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament that significantly reformed the law related to obscenity in England and Wales. Prior to the passage of the Act, the law on publishing obscene materials was governed by the common law case of R v Hicklin, which had no exceptions for artistic merit or the public good. During the 1950s, the Society of Authors formed a committee to recommend reform of the existing law, submitting a draft bill to the Home Office in February 1955. After several failed attempts to push a bill through Parliament, a committee finally succeeded in creating a viable bill, which was introduced to Parliament by Roy Jenkins and given royal assent on 29 July 1959, coming into force on 29 August 1959 as the Obscene Publications Act 1959. With the committee consisting of both censors and reformers, the actual reform of the law was limited, with several extensions to police powers included in the final version.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pornography in Europe</span>

Pornography has been dominated by a few pan-European producers and distributors, the most notable of which is the Private Media Group that successfully claimed the position previously held by Color Climax Corporation in the early 1990s. Most European countries also have local pornography producers, from Portugal to Serbia, who face varying levels of competition with international producers. The legal status of pornography varies widely in Europe; its production and distribution are illegal in countries such as Ukraine, Belarus and Bulgaria, while Hungary has liberal pornography laws.

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

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sedition Act (Singapore)</span> Statute of the Parliament of Singapore

The Sedition Act 1948 was a Singaporean statute law which prohibited seditious acts and speech; and the printing, publication, sale, distribution, reproduction and importation of seditious publications. The essential ingredient of any offence under the Act was the finding of a "seditious tendency", and the intention of the offender is irrelevant. The Act also listed several examples of what is not a seditious tendency, and provides defences for accused persons in a limited number of situations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pornography</span> Portrayal of sexual subject matter

Pornography has been defined as sexual subject material "such as a picture, video, or text" that is intended for sexual arousal. Indicated for the consumption by adults, pornography depictions have evolved from cave paintings, some forty millennia ago, to virtual reality presentations. A general distinction of adult content is made classifying it as pornography or erotica.

New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982), was a landmark decision of the U.S Supreme Court, unanimously ruling that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution did not forbid states from banning the sale of material depicting children engaged in sexual activity, even if the material was not obscene.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pornography in India</span>

Pornography in India is restricted and illegal in all form including print media, electronic media, and digital media (OTT). Hosting, displaying, uploading, modifying, publishing, transmitting, storing, updating or sharing pornography is illegal in India.

Internet censorship in Singapore is carried out by the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA). Internet services provided by the three major Internet service providers (ISPs) are subject to regulation by the MDA, which requires blocking of a symbolic number of websites containing "mass impact objectionable" material, including Playboy, YouPorn and Ashley Madison. The civil service, tertiary institutions and Institute of Technical Education has its own jurisdiction to block websites displaying pornography, information about drugs and online piracy.

In the United Kingdom, pornography is regulated by a variety of laws, regulations, judicial processes, and voluntary schemes. Pornographic material generally has to be assessed by regulators or courts to determine its legality. British censorship laws with regard to pornography have often been some of the most restrictive in Western Europe.

Censorship in New Zealand has been present since around 1850 and is currently managed by the Classification Office under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993.

Legal frameworks around fictional pornography depicting minors vary depending on country and nature of the material involved. Laws against production, distribution and consumption of child pornography generally separate images into three categories: real, pseudo, and virtual. Pseudo-photographic child pornography is produced by digitally manipulating non-sexual images of real minors to make pornographic material. Virtual child pornography depicts purely fictional characters. "Fictional pornography depicting minors", as covered in this article, includes these latter two categories, whose legalities vary by jurisdiction, and often differ with each other and with the legality of real child pornography.

An obscenity is any utterance or act that strongly offends the prevalent morality and social politics of the time. It is derived from the Latin obscēnus, obscaenus, "boding ill; disgusting; indecent", of uncertain etymology. Such loaded language can be used to indicate strong moral repugnance and outrage, vile, vigilance in conservation, or revenge. In expressions such as "obscene profits" and "the obscenity of war," ; misdirection. As a legal term, it usually refers to graphic depictions of people engaged in sexual and excretory activity, and related utterances of profanity, or the exploited child, human being or situation on display.

In the United States, distribution of "obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy" materials is a federal crime. The determination of what is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy" is up to a jury in a trial, which must apply the Miller test; however, due to the prominence of pornography in most communities most pornographic materials are not considered "patently offensive" in the Miller test.

Simulated child pornography is child pornography depicting what appear to be minors but which is produced without their direct involvement.

<i>Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Public Prosecutor</i> 1994 Singapore High Court judgment

Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Public Prosecutor is a 1994 judgment of the High Court of Singapore delivered by Chief Justice Yong Pung How which held that orders issued by the Government deregistering the Singapore Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses under the Societies Act and banning works published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society ("WTBTS") under the Undesirable Publications Act did not violate the right to freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 15(1) of the Constitution of Singapore.

United States obscenity law deals with the regulation or suppression of what is considered obscenity and therefore not protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In the United States, discussion of obscenity typically relates to defining what pornography is obscene, as well as to issues of freedom of speech and of the press, otherwise protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Issues of obscenity arise at federal and state levels. State laws operate only within the jurisdiction of each state, and there are differences among such laws. Federal statutes ban obscenity and child pornography produced with real children. Federal law also bans broadcasting of "indecent" material during specified hours.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pornography in Asia</span>

Pornography in Asia is pornography created in Asia, watched in Asia, or consumed or displayed in other parts of the world as one or more genres of Asian porn.

Media regulation in the Republic of Singapore is carried out by the Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) and effected by various laws.

References

  1. "Acts & Regulations". Ministry of Communications and Information. Ministry of Communications and Information. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  2. Koh, Corinne. "Nov 27, 2010Fighting child porn: Laws in place". Archived from the original on 13 March 2016. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  3. SOH, ANDREA. "MDA probes printer's raunchy calendars". Archived from the original on January 23, 2008. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  4. "Undesirable Publications Act" . Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  5. Robert, Catherine (4 Mar 2015). "TRS duo still out on bail in Singapore" . Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  6. "Religious Harmony - Walking the Line". Nanyang Technological University. Student Affairs Office. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  7. "MDA lifts ban on 240 publications after routine review". Straits Times. 26 Nov 2015. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  8. Feng, Zengkun (23 Jul 2014). "Panel reviewed 50 works in 2 years" . Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  9. "Ban on 240 publications lifted following MDA review" . Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  10. "Red-hot photos lurk in grey area of law". The New Paper. 14 Feb 2013. Archived from the original on March 13, 2016. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  11. Tay, Mervin. "Banned from our airwaves". The New Paper. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  12. "What is the law on pornography in Singapore?" . Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  13. "Couple charged under Sedition Act". Archived from the original on April 20, 2008. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  14. "Blogger arrested for posting racist online content" . Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  15. "Singapore lifts ban on 240 'undesirable' publications" . www.ft.com. Archived from the original on 2022-12-11. Retrieved 2021-06-24.
  16. "Nudity is considered obscene in S'pore". The New Paper. 26 Apr 2012. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  17. "Photographer & British model in Sentosa beach nude shot warned for indecency" . Retrieved 16 March 2016.
  18. "Government bans nine books, bid to preach by Singaporean". TODAYonline. Retrieved 2021-06-24.
  19. "Singapore bans distribution of publication containing Charlie Hebdo's cartoons of Prophet Muhammad". TODAY. Retrieved 2022-04-03.