Participant 16: Anonymous
(Completed on 7th February 2017, Singapore)

1) What is your view on IMDA and its classification?
It serves a necessary censorship function for any society. Its classification is not very important to me, so long as a good synopsis is given. I believe that as a mature adult, I am able to decide for myself whether I want to attend a performance.

2) How did you feel about IMDA’s denial of classification for Undressing Room, on the grounds that it contained ‘excessive nudity’?
It was clearly excessive nudity because participants had to be completely naked as part of the performance. It was indeed nudity at its most excessive. The classification is not the issue. There were guidelines and IMDA merely applied them. The issue is social acceptance, which requires mindset changes, before laws and guidelines can be changed to reflect the change in social acceptance.

3) What was your reaction to Undressing Room being withdrawn from the M1 Singapore Fringe Festival, after it was denied a classification by IMDA?
Disappointed, because the written presentation of the performance may not have been properly understood by the panel and they may have acted out of prejudices and misinformation. That was why I wrote to you on Facebook messenger to ask if I could do anything to write in to petition.

4) Why did you decide to take part in the revived Undressing Room, despite the controversy surrounding it?
Because I had originally bought a ticket and was intending to attend the performance. So I was happy to see the performance reinstated, albeit privately.  I don’t know what to expect of it. That’s the reason why the performance is interesting and I want to participate in the performance with an open mind.

5) What were your thoughts or concerns regarding your participation in Undressing Room, a performance that had not been approved by IMDA?
It was eventually a private event that became outside the purview of IMDA. Furthermore, given the strict guidelines for the performance, it was highly unlikely that any laws were violated. I assessed the legal risk for myself and was satisfied to participate. I wouldn’t be violating the law by participating in the performance. I wouldn’t have done it otherwise if I thought I were breaking the law by participating in the performance. 

I don’t think it’s fair to describe it as a work that was not approved by IMDA. It makes it seem as if the performance was conducted illegally. The work was eventually performed privately without ticketed sale, and so, comes outside the purview of IMDA. As such it’s not entirely accurate to describe it as “a work that was not approved by IMDA”. After all, in the way it was eventually performed, it would not have required IMDA’s approval.

6) How did IMDA’s decision affect your participation or experience of Undressing Room?
It did not. But it felt even more exclusive after the IMDA decision and the public outcry. It was a performance which was the subject of some controversy and strong views were aired over it. To be one of the few with a chance to participate in the work after that, felt like partaking in something special.

7) Other comments.
No.