Unbanned

I was surprised at the number of people who texted or talked with me about my “bawal” column (“Forbidden,” 11/20/15), which analyzed the Filipino penchant for forbidding this and forbidding that, and which spills over into censorship.

Maybe it reflects the circle of friends and acquaintances I have—people who tend to be more liberal and averse to censorship and an excess of the forbidden.

After writing about the forbidden and banned, I actually became more conscious about bawal signs, noting how, right at the perimeter of the University of the Philippines Diliman on CP Garcia, a police outpost actually has a whole list of “Mga Bawal sa Quezon City” (What’s forbidden in Quezon City). I haven’t had time to check what’s on the list.

Forbidding to forbid

I’ll reiterate that I’m cynical about forbidding and banning. Especially among the young, who are the main targets of proscriptions and prohibitions, curiosity grows when something is banned, and may even embolden people to try out the forbidden, not just because it might be more fun (“Mas masarap ang bawal”) but also because it becomes a display of bravura, of daring to do what shouldn’t be done.  (The word is borrowed from the Italian bravere, which means to show off.)

In the heady days of the late 1960s, when student demonstrations rocked universities throughout the world, French students’ slogans included “Il est interdit d’interdict” (It is forbidden to forbid). I’ve wondered why we never adopted our own version, like “Bawal bumawal.”  The slogan does border on anarchy, but in some ways, it comes close to what psychologists have always pointed out: Positive reinforcement works better, encouraging people to do good, or, once started, to keep doing good.

At Palma Hall (AS Building) in UP Diliman, instead of “Bawal manigarilyo” (No smoking) signs, we have “Masamang manigarilyo” (It’s harmful to smoke). No one has compared the effectivity of these signs or the even more civil “Thank you for not smoking.” I do think that with couples, and with parents and children, it’d be nice to occasionally say “I love you when you don’t smoke” to encourage someone trying to quit.

It is amusing as well when you think that what used to be banned might now become commonplace. Magazines like Playboy and Penthouse, which religion teachers once warned would send you straight to hell, are mild compared to other smut magazines and what can be seen on the Internet. In fact, the publishers of Playboy, supposedly with the blessings of their primate Hugh Hefner, has said they would no longer feature nude photographs.

Playboy chief executive Scott Flanders had this most quotable quote to explain the decision: “The battle has been fought and won. You’re now just one click away from every sex act imaginable for free.”

Playboy was just being wise, having seen how the magazine circulation had dropped from a high of 5 million in the 1970s to 800,000 today, mainly older men. I found that amusing considering that it used to be a magazine for young boys, who read the forbidden magazine with a flashlight.

Playboy probably also saw how Penthouse tried to increase its sales by becoming more explicit with its photographs, resulting in sales dropping even more.

Undesirable publications

With the forbidden still on my mind, I was thrilled to read that Singapore had lifted the ban on 240 publications, including the erotic novel “Fanny Hill,” which was first published in 1748. That was one of the first publications that Singapore banned under its amended Undesirable Publications Act—a paradoxical play on words when you think about it, given the way it wanted to ban the desirable.

The original Undesirable Publications Act was introduced under British rule in 1938—a reminder that in many countries, censorship of the political and the sexual (and the sexually political) was actually introduced by westerners. The colonial powers, including the Americans in the Philippines, were watchful about literature, plays and even music that might be “seditious,” which meant anything that advocated independence.

Singapore’s Undesirable Publications Act was actually repealed and then reenacted in 1967 with a broad definition of the undesirable as anything “prejudicial to public safety or public interest,” with a clearer categorization that came later: communist or procommunist, sex or violence, religiously biased, racially biased.

What remain banned in Singapore are 15 “lad mags,” including Playboy, Playgirl and Penthouse. (Well, maybe I shouldn’t call Playgirl a lad mag since its readership is more women and gay men.) Maybe someone should inform the Singapore government that Playboy will no longer feature nudity.

Curiously, the only other remaining banned publications are those produced by the Watchtower Society and the International Bible Studies Society, both affiliated with Jehovah’s Witnesses. The ban on their publications dates back to 1972, on grounds that the religious group is opposed to mandatory military service and to the singing of national anthems.

Reading about the ban on Jehovah’s Witnesses publications got me thinking of the contrast with the Philippines, where the Supreme Court ruled in 1993 against several public schools in the province of Cebu that had tried to expel children who were Jehovah’s Witnesses on grounds that they refused to fully participate in the flag ceremony, including singing the national anthem, saluting the flag and reciting a patriotic pledge (“Panatang Makabayan”).  The Supreme Court ruled that religious freedom was involved here and had to be respected, although members of Jehovah’s Witnesses were enjoined not to try to disrupt other people who might want to participate in the flag

ceremony.

We see how censorship and banning are tricky, like so many other interpretations of laws. Reading about Singapore’s “unbanning” also reminded me of how, in the 1990s, when I’d visit Indonesia I would be requested by some friends there to bring in copies of Pramoedya Ananta Toer’s books. Ananta Toer was an Indonesian writer who was imprisoned and tortured and his books banned because he wrote about social problems.

I would oblige, buying copies of Ananta Toer’s books in Singapore’s Changi airport in transit to Indonesia. As far as I know, his books were never banned in Singapore.

* * *

mtan@inquirer.com.ph