DPP caught red-handed censoring key films

When the DPP finally took over the reigns of government, no one ever foresaw that it would increase censorship.

The Government Information Office (GIO) has recently censored foreign films with a heavy-handedness not seen since the dark days of martial law. Despite all the rhetoric about freedom and openness, once in power the DPP has turned out to be very culturally conservative.

Last fall the GIO ruined the Golden Horse Awards film festival by banning public access to a number of foreign art films. One of the films the public could not see was Apocalypse Now Redux, the director's cut of a classic film based on Joseph Conrad's famous novel Heart of Darkness. Film critics universally consider it an important cinematic masterpiece. The New York Times called it "a great movie" that achieves "sublimity."

The GIO gave the film a very different review when they prohibited the public from attending the screenings. Apocalypse Now Redux was later shown on cable television, but originally only film students were allowed to see it for educational purposes.

That festival was just the start a new era of censorship. For example, the acclaimed Mexican film Y Tu Mama Tambien was recently shown in Taipei, but with dancing dots covering up the nudity. The GIO seems to consider it pornographic and harmful. More reliable film critics have a very different opinion. The San Francisco Examiner called the film "an absolute must-see." The BBC proclaimed it "a great film." And the New York Times said "the audience will have seen something unforgettable."

Earlier I wrote a letter to GIO Director General Arthur Iap (葉國興) asking for an end to the censorship of foreign art films. I received a brief reply from one of his staff explaining that the agency was required by law to censor certain films. She enclosed a copy of the media laws.

Anyone who thinks that Taiwan is free will be disappointed to learn that the government is theoretically required by law to ban films for a disturbingly large number of reasons. If the censorship laws were enforced to the letter, almost every film would be prohibited. Media freedom in this country is not based on rights enshrined in legislation, but merely on the uncertain altruism of the government bureaucrats.

The recent rise of censorship points to a strange contradiction within the DPP. As an opposition party they portrayed themselves as partisans of liberty. But to succeed in elections, they must appeal to their core constituency of extremely conservative voters in the south. Even though very few rural voters watch foreign art films, the prejudices of southern conservatives now dictate what Taipei audiences can see.

As the country gets to know the DPP better, we are beginning to see how the party's ranks unfortunately include unsophisticated people who have little understanding of the world beyond this little island. The painful indecision that often grips the DPP reflects a culture clash between the provincial society of southern Taiwan and the diversity of the modern globalized world.

DPP censorship of foreign art films shows the party recoiling from foreign ideas that many of its members neither understand nor like. If this continues, it will be interesting to see how the rest of the world reacts. Officially the international community considers the government illegitimate. And yet this country continues to attract enthusiastic international support for one reason -- because the government supposedly embraces freedom.

Commitment to the humane ideals of liberty, human rights, and tolerance are the nation's sole source of legitimacy in the eyes of the world. Censoring foreign films undermines its only means of attracting international support.

Bret Hinsch is an associate professor at the department of history at National Chung Cheng University.