COMMERCIAL TELEVISION (INTRODUCTION)

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, in moving this motion before the House which reads,

That this House approves in principle the introduction of commercial television in Singapore by the issue of an exclusive licence to a commercial undertaking without charge on public funds but subject to control by the Government,

I wish to emphasise that this is not strictly a Government policy and therefore hon. Members are free to vote according to their convictions.

Singapore today, by virtue of its strategic position in South-East Asia, is a commercial centre and is like a department store. It is therefore not unnatural for the management of this great commercial house to decorate its frontage to attract customers and to display as many attractive goods as possible in the interior. The management is you, upon whom lies the decision whether or not to modernise this attractive city by providing, at no expense at all to Government, this modern form of entertainment. Singapore is a modern city and we must keep up with the march of time in other countries where television is already a common thing.

Hon. Members will no doubt have read Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 32 of 1955 in which all three tenders submitted to Government have been published for information. The public have been given two months within which to submit their tenders and only three tenders have so far been submitted. From them, several factors are clear to us. Firstly, it needs a large capital to set up a station without the slightest prospect of making a profit at the outset. Secondly, the licensee must have a supply of entertainment material to keep its programmes popular. Thirdly, the commercial value of Singapore will be boosted up and the benefits to the public in the form of tourist attraction will be immense. As the House is not asked to approve any particular tender, I need not go into the merits or demerits of each tender submitted. It is clear, anyway, to Members of this House which of the tenders reflects seriousness of thought.

In advocating the acceptance in principle of commercial television in Singapore, I am not unaware of the opposition to an entirely commercialised operation. The main objection to such an undertaking is that a commercial television firm will not be able to resist attempts by advertisers to advertise their goods at programme time when viewers are not at all interested in such advertisements, thereby sacrificing programme content to the control of commercial interests without regard to the general benefits accruing to viewers. Surely, the operators are alive to this prospect and it is in their own interests to ensure that the likes and dislikes of the general public are treated with priority instead of their having to bow to the whims and fancies of advertisers. On this matter, it may be argued that the Press accept advertisements but they remain responsible for their news and editorial columns. Cinemas show advertisements during the interval but their programmes are not sponsored by advertisers. It has been argued that a private company cannot remain unbiased in the field of politics, but against this there is the proviso that in matters of public policy the Government has control over them. The company will not be allowed to put forth its own political or religious views to the public as is done in the United Kingdom. Government will see that this policy is strictly adhered to.

There is also the objection that with this most powerful means of mind influencing in the hands of an unscrupulous undertaking, caution will be thrown to the winds and we will see only trash entertainment, such as gangster films, cowboy pictures and the like. It is suggested that during electioneering campaigns, commercial undertakings might flash across the T.V. screens pictures of certain candidates in whom the T.V. owners are interested. It is because of such possibilities that Government retains control in matters of public policy.

Another safeguard against this is by way of legislation which prohibits such programmes. I wish to draw the attention of hon. Members to the United Kingdom Television Act of 1954. Section 3 of the Act ensures:

"That nothing is included in the programme which offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling or which contains any offensive representation of or reference to a living person."

It goes on to say:

"That the programmes maintain a proper balance in their subject matter and a high general standard of quality;

That any news given in the programmes in whatever form is presented with due accuracy and impartiality;

That the programmes broadcast from any station or stations contain a suitable proportion of matter calculated to appeal especially to the taste and outlook of persons served by the station or stations;

That due impartiality is preserved on the part of the persons providing the programmes as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy."

Sub-section (4) further says:

"That items designed to give publicity to the needs or objects of any association or organisation conducted for charitable or benevolent purposes, reviews of literary, artistic or other publications or productions including current entertainments will not be treated as an advertisement."

Legislation of this nature will make it possible to appoint Advisory Committees, to advise against any offensive religious matters, to advise Government as to misleading advertisements, and to give advice as to the principles to be followed in connection with the broadcasting of suitable programmes intended for children and young persons.

In the United Kingdom it is the Government which supplies all the equipment necessary for transmitting television, thus incurring capital expenditure, but in Singapore we are only asked to approve in principle an exclusive licence to a commercial undertaking which will supply its own equipment and bear all the recurrent expenditure.

Another aspect of the value of T.V. is the cultural and educational side of the programme. In this, the Government will certainly make use of the free time allotted for cultural and educational programmes. This is a form of visual aid to education which is entirely different from a radio broadcast. I do not mean to say that educational programmes are an answer to the many problems facing us as regards the education of our young ones but they are at least a supplementary to what they are already learning. Any visual aid to education conducted on proper lines and based on a Malayan background can be very useful to youths to supplement their knowledge. Cultural shows depicting the several cultures of the Malayan races that form the population of this country can be systematically put across the television screen, thus bringing to life the various aspects of culture of educational value which cannot be depicted by the radio.

Television incorporates, I understand, two systems of transmission, one by sound and one by signal. In times of war, any message by the signal system can be flashed across the screen without fear of being picked up by the enemy.

Once the principle in granting a licence to a commercial undertaking is accepted by the House, Government will assume the responsibility of ensuring that the wishes of this House are carried out by the licensee. It will then be necessary to enact legislation, part of which I have read out just now, so that provision can be made to control the nature of the programmes, advertisements, etc. Sir, I beg to move

Mr Seah Peng Chuan (Kampong Kapor): Mr Speaker, Sir, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak at a later period.

Question proposed.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that it is the Minister for Education of the Labour Front Coalition Government and not the Minister for National Amusement and Entertainment who is moving this resolution. I am glad to be reassured that there are people in the Labour Front who understand that television is one of the most powerful weapons for influencing human minds, whether for good or for evil. There are times when many of those on my side of the House have despaired as to whether there are such people in the Labour Front. Recently when we heard that a teacher, who is a specialist in teaching mental defectives, was being employed to reorganise the Labour Front, we thought that things had come to a very sorry state indeed. However, we are amused that the Minister for Education has undertaken the task of putting forward to this House the proposition that this powerful weapon for the education of our young and old should be left to a commercial undertaking. We have just published an All-Party Education Committee Report in which all Parties, fortunately, were able to arrive at a unanimous agreement. The Committee agreed that education is the most important weapon in forging a Malayan nation and that it cannot be left to the whims and idiosyncrasies of any commercial tycoon or groups of them.

The Hon. the Chief Minister told the House yesterday that seven million televiewers were glued to their television sets whilst the great statesman from Singapore walked across the world stage in London. I wonder, Sir, whether he realised how many of those televiewers would have seen him walking across the world stage if there were not an independent British corporation which runs television -

The Chief Minister: And a commercial.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: And a commercial - we shall come to that by and by. The commercial one is not quite so successful and I shall give the reasons for the resignation of one of the big men engaged in the commercial undertaking.

But I am surprised that a Socialist Party should put forward the proposition that a public utility - and television is no more no less than a public utility - should be handed over to private enterprise. I have always thought that a Socialist is one who believes that state planning and control would bring about the greatest benefit to the community as a whole. If it will be to the benefit of the community to have this instrument become the monopoly of some capitalists, however benign, however philanthropic, for fifteen whole years with two five-year periods for renewal, why does the Government run its own radio station and not let a commercial tycoon run it? If it were not for a colonial power, we would have had a public corporation by now, and run it independently, instead of making a mockery of the impartiality with which it pretends to manage Radio Malaya. But we shall come to that by and by, after April.

I would like to remind this House that the way in which this television scheme has been presented reminds one of the way in which the Rediffusion scheme was pushed through by the colonial power. Tenders were invited, published in the Press, and were received. Wires were going over private property before any Bill was presented in the Legislative Council. It was opposed in the Legislative Chamber, but it went through. Then, typical of the elected representatives of that pre-Rendel era, when Rediffusion held its opening ceremony, those "stalwarts" who tried to prevent it from coming into operation, all joined in the felicitations and the celebrations for the opening.

In this particular case, we have before us Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 32 of 1955 and in the back page is set out "TENDER NOTICE T.V. STATION IN SINGAPORE". There are three applicants, but, as the Hon. the Minister for Education has said, only one tender was really submitted with seriousness. One was by Shaw Brothers. It was very short and appeared on page 2. There were no concrete programmes and no concrete proposals. The second was by Rediffusion, on page 3. The third was by the Cathay Organisation, on page 5.

It might be interesting for the House to know that the local Chairman of Rediffusion is the same person as the man who signs himself for the Cathay Organisation - Mr Loke Wan Tho. Sir, I know Mr Loke personally, and I hope he will understand that what I have to say in my capacity as a Member of this Assembly in no way affects any personal regard I may have for him. But I think that it is unfair on the part of the Minister for Education to slide over the applications. What he says amounts to - "If it is a matter of detail, you can trust us. We will see that it is done properly. After all, there is only one serious application, and we will see that it is given to the right man, and it will be done in the proper way."

Sir, the qualifications of the applicant are set out on page 8 under five heads:

(i) Experience of commercial broadcasting.

There, Mr Loke sets out his experience as the local Chairman of Rediffusion Limited. He is the only Asian Director.

(ii) Film Production and Distribution.

(iii) Early application.

(iv) Newspaper Experience.

(v) Civic Responsibility.

Sir, no one, I think, would deny that we all admire civic responsibility amongst those members of the community who are fortunate enough to have been blessed with wealthy parents. But I find it difficult to understand how it can be advanced as an argument that, because the applicant personally is a man of some social standing, he should therefore be entrusted with this powerful weapon of propaganda - that it is safe - that he himself, it appears, will personally see to it that things are done in a manner which will benefit the people of Singapore. May I just read out two of the qualifications which I think completely disqualify the applicant:

"(ii) Film Production and Distribution.

The Cathay Organisation produces and distributes films in Malay and Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese). It operates a film studio in Singapore and one in Hongkong. The Distribution Department of the Cathay Organisation also handles product from Britain, the U.S.A., France and Italy.

It is well known that a T.V. station depends to a large extent on films for its programmes, and the Cathay Organisation with its own film distribution facilities will be in a splendid position to provide for the needs of the T.V. station; its film studios will also be able to provide programmes in Malay and Chinese.

The knowledge which this Organisation possesses of film production is knowledge which may be applied to the production of live shows for the T.V. programmes. Moreover, we have the contacts with the artistes whose services will be needed for these programmes.

Then:

"(v) Civic Responsibility.

Television, apart from being a medium of entertainment, is also an instrument that can be a powerful force in the influencing of public opinion. Before a licence is granted, Government no doubt will wish to take seriously into consideration the civic record of the applicant. His record in this field should not merely be judged by the monetary contributions which he has made to charitable objects, but it should also be judged by the amount of personal service and of his time which he has given to public work.

In this connection we would suggest that the education and background of the applicant, his sense of responsibility, his awareness of political, cultural and economic developments, his financial and moral standing, his record as an employer, his imagination and farsightedness, his record with the income-tax department, are all aspects of the applicant's character which must be assessed before a licence is granted.

(Sd.) LOKE WAN THO, Chairman, Cathay Organisation."

Sir, I have here a copy of an application for a T.V. licence made by a certain Mr Williams on behalf of the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd., Melbourne. I think it will show the Government - I do not know whether it is the Government that is involved or just the Hon. the Minister for Education - that this is not a trifling matter, where one puts in an advertisement in a newspaper which reads:

"Government invites schemes from the public for the construction and adequate operation of a T.V. Station in Singapore. Successful tenderer will be given an exclusive operating licence on the following general terms subject to contract. Put in your application.'

In this application in Australia, there are a series of questions which ask the applicant to lay bare all the possible factors that may influence his running of a T.V. Station. There are fifteen questions and they occupy the whole book.

"(1) State whether application is made on behalf of an individual, partnership, or company, or company to be formed, or a combination of interests:

(2) If application is made by a company, state where incorporated. Attach a copy of Memorandum and Articles of Association and furnish full details of:

(a) Financial position including balance sheet and copy of Profit and Loss Account and Profit and Loss Appropriation Account for the last five years:

(b) Shareholders including address and occupation of each...;

(c) Names and occupations of directors and names of principal officers of company,

(d) Association of the applicant or any director or principal officer in any way with any of the following businesses:

(i) Broadcasting, including production of programmes;

(ii) Newspaper;

(iii) Advertising;

(iv) Theatrical management and production;

(v) Motion pictures, production, processing, distribution and exhibition;

(vi) Manufacture or distribution of radio and television equipment or receivers;

(e) Association of any shareholder of more than five per cent of the shares in the company of any other business specified in paragraph (d)."

Even a shareholder having more than five per cent of the shares of the company, who is connected with any of these businesses, must declare it, because it is considered that anyone who is connected with the cinema industry or broadcasting or with any theatrical performance is not a person who can fairly advance the interests of television.

Sir, seven million people watched the Hon. the Chief Minister in London. I was struck by that, Mr Speaker, Sir, because it is this old idea of the mass man - people by the masses. But I wonder how many would have been watching the television screens, their eyes glued to this little movie at home, if there were not the programmes to sustain that interest. If people are watching television at home, they are not likely to be watching pictures at the local theatre. Cinema attendances are falling off in Great Britain, and the cinematograph world has answered with 3D, 3D Sound, Vista Vision, and CinemaScope. It is a challenge to them. Sir, it is in the interest of cinema exhibitors to drive the people from their homes into the cinemas and not to attract them from the cinemas into their homes, and I should have thought that that alone completely disqualifies all the three tenderers, including Rediffusion which is connected with broadcasting.

Sir, the Hon. the Minister for Education has said that a person who runs this T.V. Station would probably lose money and here we have a philanthropic organisation that is prepared to lose money. I am a charitable man by nature, Sir. I like to believe that people do things with charitable motives. But there are limits to human charity. Nobody runs a T.V. station for fifteen years at a loss after a capital outlay estimated by the Hon. the Minister for Education at some $5 millions.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: I never said that.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Is it five? I think it is in the application form - ah, yes, it is $3 millions. I am quite prepared to believe that the Cathay Organisation is a wealthy and powerful organisation with limitless resources, but people do not run T.V. stations for the sake of losing money. Either they can make the thing work and it pays money, in which case there is no reason why a Government department or a public corporation should not do it; or if it is going to lose money, then there must be a reason why they are prepared to lose that money. I suggest that that reason is the protection of certain other interests - that it is thought better to lose some money here than to lose more money elsewhere if somebody else gets hold of this T.V. station. And the protection of those other interests is inimical to the interests of the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. the Minister for Education has referred to Government controls and he has sought to emphasise that he will see to it that he will introduce legislation to achieve this. He cannot personally see to these things but there will be legislation to see that the programmes are not of doubtful standing, that they are appropriate for young boys and girls and that they should have nothing to do with gangsters. I congratulate the Minister for being alive to the dangers of T.V. being misused.

Sir, there are two commercial T.V. stations in Asia. The Americans are very proud of it. They built both of them - one in Japan and one in Bangkok. I have the word of a personal friend of mine who said that he had seen the one in Japan. "It is unbelievable", said he. "You see trailers and you have got to go to a cinema to watch the whole of the picture; and you see all kinds of absurd and inconsequential things." Well, that is hearsay. But I do have some document to show what they do in Bangkok. It is a pity that the Far Eastern representative of R.C.A. did not pursue his invitation to this Assembly to invite Members to view his magnum opus in Bangkok. He at one time suggested to the Hon. the Chief Minister, and later to the Common- wealth Parliamentary Association, that we might send an all-Party delegation to Bangkok, all at R.C.A. expense, in order to broaden our education. But the R.C.A. representative somehow felt that there might be some Members in this Assembly who would think it an improper suggestion and so he decided not to pursue the matter. I have pursued the matter and I have here what is known as R.C.A. News dated August 5, 1955, by Leonard S. Skoblin - I think he was the gentleman who wanted to do us a favour the other time and it says here:

"R.C.A. NEWS

No. 7.

TELEVISION IN THAILAND

'Thailand Has Entered The Television Age.' This is how one of the leading newspapers in Bangkok started its editorial on the opening of the country's first T-V Station. 'The new medium', it said further, 'seemed to lend itself well to the Thai skill in showmanship and love of entertainment.'

The first television station in Thailand, and the first on the mainland of Asia, was opened in Bangkok by the Prime Minister, Field Marshal Phibul, on June 24th, Thailand's National Day."

(I could imagine a similar ceremony opened here).

"It is owned by the government-controlled and commercially operated Thai Television Company."

Then there is a lot of blurb about the modernistic trends and beautiful studios with air-conditioning that could be switched on and off independently. Finally we come to the programmes. It says:

"Perhaps one may best feel the reaction through reading a few abstracts from an editorial of another Journal in Bangkok previously critical towards television. In part, it said:

'We wish to extend to the newly arrived Television our welcome and our wish for its success. As we rapturously watched the Television Screen for our first experience of Television in this country, we were awed by the technical perfection of the transmission. The figures shown on the screen came out as bright and clear as we could ever wish for. There was a sense of magic in the atmosphere, as one always feels when face to face for the first time with the latest development in modern science.

We looked forward to this first transmission with some trepidation. Realizing the importance of the occasion, we were resigned to have staring at us some well-known face of an important personage. But, instead, we had smiling at us a young and comely wench, who seems to be a perfect medium for Television since she could, without uttering a word, speak quite fluently with her eyes alone... We were simply regaled with a "Hit Parade" of the more famous jazz tunes and an item called "Venetian Night" in which a young man pleaded soulfully with us to "Come Back to Sorrento!" "Laurel and Hardy" made us chuckle with their destructive pranks, and, in the end, we were held spellbound by the gripping life story of Dillinger.'

(Mr Dillinger, Sir, was a very famous American gangster.)

'Experts may look down their noses at the programme and call it second rate. We may agree with them on point of technical skill; but the spirit of the whole show was as mad, as non-consequential and as free as the United Nations Charter of Human Rights.'"

Sir, that is T.V. come to Bangkok. May I read it? - "owned by the government - controlled and commercially operated Thai Television Company." God forbid, Sir, that it should come to Singapore.

We all know - I think it is general knowledge - that British T.V. is the pride of the world. It is acknowledged that there is no other T.V, station in the world which produces programmes of such high quality without interruptions in the middle of a very dramatic scene with Kolynos Toothpaste, or Pepsi Cola. After that they tried to launch into commercial television. There was a long period of investigation and survey. A White Paper was tabled and there were long and strenuous debates. I know the Hon. the Minister for Education has got the White Paper, but I do not know if he has looked through these debates. Finally, the Bill was passed with a great deal of opposition from the Socialist Members in the House of Commons. They opposed it bitterly and they still oppose it. Great safeguards were included in the Bill to see that standards were maintained. Recently, a man called Adrian Crawley, who was in charge of the News and Features Section of this commercial T.V. station, resigned and one of the reasons for his resignation was that he was unable to resist the pressure of advertisers, and if he yielded to the advertisers, he could not maintain the standards laid down for commercial T.V.

Sir, we all want television to come to Singapore but not at that price. We feel that the proper way would be to have a Commission set up to investigate the possibilities of introducing T.V. in Singapore to be run by an independent corporation. Before we can debate the matter, there should be a report by those qualified to make such a report. Expert technicians, expert entertainers and all kinds of bodies - political, religious, they are all set out here in this Australian application, if the Hon. the Minister for Education is interested - must be consulted before the matter could even be debated. We must acquaint ourselves with the facts. I would not go into the merits and demerits of it because I feel that we are not properly equipped to argue the case. But we do know this: that the best thing to do is to send it to some Commission - not to a Commission of this Assembly - but to an independent Commission to be appointed by the Government which can include amongst its members experts in the broadcasting world, in the entertainment world, in the news world and in the political world, to explore the whole field and then make its report. On the basis of that report, the Government might table a White Paper stating Government's policy - not any particular Minister's idiosyncrasies - and then we could be in a position, having properly deliberated on the matter in our respective Parties, to state our Party view.

Sir, it is with this in mind that I beg to move,

That the motion before this House be amended, first, by deleting the word "commercial' before "television", and then by deleting the whole of the phrase following "in Singapore" and adding thereto "and recommends that a Commission be appointed to explore the possibilities of setting up a public corporation to operate it."

The amended motion will then read:

"That this House approves in principle the introduction of television in Singapore and recommends that a Commission be appointed to explore the possibilities of setting up a public corporation to operate it."

Amendment handed in.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am told that there are some Socialists on the other side of the House -

Mr Speaker: May I have just a minute to consider the amendment?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I beg your pardon, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Will the hon. Member consider a different amendment which would facilitate debate? This amendment would be to leave out all words after the word "of" in line 1 and to insert the words "television in Singapore and recommends that a Commission be appointed to explore the possibilities of setting up a public corporation to operate it."

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Certainly, Mr Speaker, Sir. It is another way of putting the same thing.

Mr Speaker: It would facilitate debate.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Yes, I am much obliged, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: The amendment is in order.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, I do not think that any Socialist will deny that that is the proper way in which to embark on this public project. If we are to avoid sex and gangsterism, then let us have a properly constituted corporation to run it, if need be at a loss, for if private enterprise is prepared to run it at a loss, then it must be worth the Government's while to run it at a loss. Sir, I beg to move.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): Mr Speaker, Sir, it falls to me, by ill-luck, to second an amendment which I should otherwise substantially have moved. I sought to catch your eye but I was unlucky and I have to come second into the field. I had intended to move a substantially similar amendment to omit all the words from "of" in line 1 and substitute "a Committee to study the means of introducing television" but I am happy to accept the Member for Tanjong Pagar's motion in lieu thereof. I agree with a good deal of what he said, but there are certain other points which I think will further justify the appointment of a Commission or a Committee to go into this matter and advise us.

I would first like to point out that in the original motion, we have the words "without charge on public funds". That is, no doubt, strictly true but it is not an adequate statement of the case. The fact is that public funds and private funds are only two aspects of national funds, and although the Government, as a Government, appears to give television free, the country does not get it free. It has to pay for it, just as much as or possibly more than if it was paid for out of taxation. A publicly operated television station will be financed by direct taxation. A privately operated one will be financed by what is essentially indirect taxation, that is, out of the profits which the commercial operators make on their commercial transactions. From these profits they find the money for the television station. That is as far as the financing of it goes - no difference in the cost to the national funds - although the Hon. the Financial Secretary no doubt is saved the trouble of keeping accounts, as those are done privately. That is the main significant difference, and from that aspect the Government does not have to bother looking after the money side of it.

There is another significant difference between private and public control which has already been pointed out, and that is that public ownership means public control by a responsible government, and private ownership means private control by less responsible private interests. This brings me to the point which the Member for Tanjong Pagar made very forcefully, and I would like to endorse it - that although the original motion says "subject to control by the Government", of course, everything in the country is subject to control by the Government in the last analysis. But, in fact, it is extremely difficult to control some things unless you have the proper mechanism for it, and experience of the Independent Television Authority in England has not given any great confidence in the ability of a government to devise means of controlling advertisers in their relations with commercial television. However, those are by the way; points which have substantially been made already.

I would like to elaborate on another point which the Member for Tanjong Pagar made. He pointed out - what was obviously clear anyhow - that a commercial station operates for profit, and that if they do not make a profit they will not operate. Where the profit comes from and where it actually lies may not be obvious to the man in the street, but, ultimately, there will be a profit; a future profit if not an immediate one. If that profit does not come about, then your commercial television will collapse underneath you and you will be left with some expensive and idle equipment and nothing else. But we will assume that businessmen are good judges of their own business and that a commercial television station does run at a satisfactory profit. That profit can only derive from increased sales as a result of increased advertising, and increased sales means increased consumption, and that consumption is not of essential goods. You will not find any commercial firm saying, "Buy Mr Blank's beautiful white rice", or even "Buy a North & Hillard Latin Grammar". What you will find advertised are the luxury goods, soft drinks, cigarettes, or possibly hard drinks, whisky, possibly cinemas, possibly newspapers - all the things which, no doubt, are very nice to have - lipstick or nylon stockings - delightful things in their way but not essentials. They are luxuries. The increased sales largely take place in the relatively prosperous group, and every luxury consumption reduces the amount of money available for saving. This is a serious point as the people in Singapore are not very adept in saving.

The Chief Minister: They have not got it.

Mr Francis Thomas: I would like to stress this because saving is the essential basis of freedom. Independence, freedom, Merdeka - all this is going to be largely dependent on whether this country can be economically independent and if we are going to achieve economic independence, there must be a very great increase in savings by the people of this country as a whole. Otherwise you are going to have to import your capital and your imported capital means that you are dependent on foreign control for a considerable part of your economy, so that if we have a successfully operated commercial station, it must succeed, as far as I can judge, at the expense of the savings which we ought to make in order to finance the essential development of industry.

There is another effect which will follow from successful commercial advertising. It is an effect which is sometimes praised by the economists. That is the monopoly effect. A brand of goods, a cigarette or a soft drink which has the largest allocation for advertising and employs the best advertising talent, will attract the largest sale. It will drive off the market or drive into the fringe of the market other goods which are less well advertised because they have less money available. In other words, the luxury goods that have the largest capital backing drive the weaker ones off the market and you get something approaching a monopoly situation which, it may be argued, does produce greater efficiency. It is an argument which economists make, that a monopoly situation produces efficiency. Whether we all accept that I do not know, but there is this point to make - that in quite a considerable sector of economy, I imagine that the firms which will secure the market in television advertising are likely to be expatriate firms where the capital backing is good, where the technical skills are good, and where, through television, they can secure much larger sales for things that are not manufactured in this country at all but are imported.

Hence, as far as I can judge, a commercial television station is liable to tend to restrict the development of our economy. Firstly, it strikes at savings which are necessary if we are going to develop locally. Secondly, it strikes at the development of small local industries because they are pushed off the market by the big overseas industries. A further aspect of that is also that there may well be a considerable flow of wealth overseas to overseas investors.

There are a number of technical points which also need considering in relation to television, both as to the quality of the television image which is projected and also as to the type of programme which is appropriate and feasible. I do not propose to enter into those points at all except to say that they are very important, and do need study and cannot be studied except with considerable labour and a good deal of expert knowledge. That is why I am anxious that we should have in this Assembly general agreement that we should look before we leap, and that the enormous accumulation of facts relating to television and the enormous volume of arguments for and against it should be studied by a competent body of independent, able and impartial citizens who can put their findings in the form of a report on which we can reasonably judge as to what is the right thing to do.

I am therefore very happy, Mr Speaker, to second the amendment put forward by the Member for Tanjong Pagar.

Mr Speaker: The original motion was:

That this House approves in principle the introduction of commercial television in Singapore by the issue of an exclusive licence to a commercial undertaking without charge on public funds but subject to control by the Government,

since when an amendment has been proposed to leave out all the words after the word "of" in line 1 and to insert therein the words "television in Singapore and recommends that a Commission be appointed to explore the possibilities of setting up a public corporation to operate it". This would then make the Question:

"That this House approves in principle the introduction of television in Singapore and recommends that a Commission be appointed to explore the possibilities of setting up a public corporation to operate it."

The Question now before the House is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

The Chief Minister: If it please you, Mr Speaker, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, in moving the appointment of this Commission, indicated that we know nothing of the merits or demerits of the proposal and gave an extraordinary exhibition of a long speech about nothing.

Sir, out of luck - and I think I must take responsibility for the paper before you - the suggestion for television in Singapore was broached many months ago and it attracted me because it was obvious and it seems to be generally accepted here now that television could be an instrument for cultural fusion, an instrument for a matter of which we stand in considerable need. Investigations disclosed, however, Sir, that the cost of installation and buildings would amount to between two and three million dollars and that it was quite certain, however efficiently run it was, that in the first two to three years there must be a loss, but that if run efficiently it could thereafter make a profit. Sir, we are in this position, that although this is by no means a poor country, we wish at the present moment to direct all our available wealth to certain immediate needs of a social welfare character. You can appreciate that Government is anxious - I do not suggest that it is not in a position to do so - to avoid expenditure where possible, particularly expenditure of so large a character and with a continuing liability of an unspecified nature, and also having regard to the advice that, if undertaken by an organisation without entertainment experience, it could in itself become a fiasco. In those circumstances, Sir, it seemed to me that, if it were possible for private capital with experience in that field to do the work subject to Government control, we should both have our cake and eat it. I was so surprised that that would be utterly impossible and fantastic, and that if Government wanted control it would have to subscribe capital and to partake of the liability for annual losses.

It was in those circumstances and in order to ascertain whether the idea was feasible and in no way an attempt to jump the gun, as seems to have been suggested by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, that an advertisement was put in to see whether any responsible organisation would be prepared to work with Government on that basis. I must confess that I was delighted to discover, on the last day, that there were three responsible organisations - organisations which have experience in the entertainment world and which have proved themselves over many years in this country as being capable of running an efficient enterprise.

Now, I would like to make some things clear, Sir, in the matter of this original proposal. If the original motion is approved, then it will be a matter of negotiation between a Committee to be appointed by the Government and the tenderers to finalise the exact conditions under which a licence would be issued. I think hon. Members are aware, and if not I would like to make it clear, that any such agreement would be submitted in the form of a Bill. This Government is giving no monopoly under any authority except the authority of this House. It would be submitted to this House for approval. I would like to say this, Sir, that much of the speech of the Member for Tanjong Pagar seemed to be in derision of the organisation known, I think, as the Cathay Organisation. I should like to make this very, very clear, Sir, that the motion itself does not suggest, nor is it intended that it should suggest, that any of the tenders are accepted in their present form. I think the motion is quite clear, Sir, in pointing out that there will be absolute Government control, and, secondly, that there will be no charge on the public funds.

Sir, it is asked why, if there is to be a loss, these organisations should tender. Is it for charity? No, of course, not. These organisations are allied with entertainment organisations or are themselves entertainment organisations. They could get a wider field for the entertainment which they now present. Therefore, they could get cheaper services which an independent corporation cannot. They can therefore, Sir, make additional profits for their existing organisations, or make less onerous the loss that would be suffered by the television organisation until such time as television has caught on. As I say, Sir, one can in these matters but estimate, and the estimate is that it might take about three years before there could be a sufficient number of viewers to make possible a reasonable income for commercial organisations interested in the venture.

Sir, we are told that, on socialistic grounds, there should be state planning and control. I do ask hon. Members to recognise the fact that, in this instance, there is state control - absolute - and although the licence is for fifteen years - ten years renewable or whatever it is - that is merely in the advertisement, Sir, and is not inherent in the motion. What I hope can be worked out is an exclusive licence which can be re-purchased by Government at any time, subject to payment of capital invested plus a reasonable profit, and if allowed to continue for a certain period, let us say, ten or fifteen years, which would enable them to recoup themselves and make a profit, then we purchase only at market value on the date of purchase. In those circumstances, Sir, I feel that we can rapidly get together on the issues, present the Bill to this House, have a Select Committee on it and, if passed, we may have with luck a television station in operation sometime next year.

This reference to a Commission which will hear the same type of objections which have been made here is merely an attempt to shelve an issue, as I see it, and is one that will cause delay and is rather a promise of something on the never never system. I would like to say this, Sir, that the suggestion that this House should appoint a Commission to consider the implementation of its desire for television only on the basis that it is owned by a public corporation is a dangerous one, because it may well be that the report is of a character which negatives the practicability of television by a public corporation other than at an exorbitant cost which it is quite unreasonable to bear.

Sir, in life there is never perfection. There must be compromise. The proposal made in the original motion is one where there is compromise between public control and private finance - rather a marriage between public control and private finance. I say, Sir, that I can see no merit in the amendment and that, in my view, it has serious objections: one, of delay and, two, of making television probably impracticable, because you are tying the Commission down, Sir, to refusing to consider the possibility of commercial television. It is important to recognise that. If you tie that Commission down to just consideration of state television, you may find the cost quite beyond our means. But it is important, I think, that we should have this instrument of cultural fusion and it is possible to have substantial control of the policy and the programme of a television station which has commercial television. I do ask hon. Members seriously to consider the issues and I do request that they realise that if they accept the amendment, it may well be that that is the end of television for the time being.

The Chief Secretary (Mr W. A. C. Goode): Sir, the problem which faces us this afternoon is not an easy problem. It is a very difficult problem. It is a problem which has engaged the very serious and prolonged attention of other Governments - New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and other countries - and they have for a long time been wrestling with the issue of the method by which television should be allowed to operate in their countries. It is an issue, Sir, which I regard as being of the very greatest importance for the welfare and the future of the people of Singapore, and I would suggest to hon. Members of this House that it is one on which we should not decide in haste and repent at leisure. I, for one, will weep no tears if acceptance of this amendment delays the introduction of television into Singapore. If, by the delay of a few months, in order to carry out detailed and careful examination of all the issues involved and of all the ways in which difficulties can be overcome, we find an answer which is more satisfactory than the present proposal, then I say that the delay will be well in the interests of the future of Singapore.

To me, there is one consideration in this problem which is of over-riding importance, and that is that we must keep constantly before us the power of this instrument of television to influence the minds and the lives of the people of Singapore. This is a small community. The whole of the community will be within range of a television service. The television service goes into the homes of the people, it has an attraction unrivalled by any other form of entertainment. It combines - I think this has already been said - the power of the Press, the power of the cinema and the power of broadcasting. Already, it has raised serious social problems in other countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, particularly in its effect on children - and half of our population is under 21. This Assembly has, I submit, a very clear and real responsibility to ensure, as far as we possibly can, that television is an influence to the good here and not an influence towards lowering all standards - educational, moral and civic - and it is for this reason alone that I personally have no doubt at all that, in the best interests of the people, television should be in the hands either of the Broadcasting Department or of a public corporation, charged by statute to look after the interests not of those who sell soap, but of the men, women and children of Singapore. There is to me a fundamental objection to entrusting television to a commercial operator, however worthy may be the individuals connected with that organisation. My objection is this: that for a commercial operator to cover his costs and to make his profits, he must have advertising, and if his programmes are going to be worth while to the advertiser, then he must let the advertiser have a say in the content of those programmes. He who pays the piper must be allowed to call the tune, and by the very nature of things, whatever assurances we may have to the contrary and with whatever good intention they may be made, the ultimate criterion of the programme must be to sell goods, and for that purpose it must have an appeal to the mass to encourage sales. We know very well from the experience of other countries that what sells advertising is the sensational and the popular - what appeals to our senses and to our appetites rather than to our minds and our better nature. You do not sell soap-flakes by the lasting virtue of good music. You sell it by what have come to be called "soap-box operas". You do not sell cigarettes and other articles by the beauty of art. You sell them by what is called "cheesecake". The result must be that, sooner or later, the mass of the programme will be sub-standard by any objective criterion of art or entertainment.

I am told that in the United States 92 per cent of television programmes are made up of films. Most of these films are specially made for television sponsored by the advertisers. They consist largely of the cheap sob-stuff stories of the home, of crime serials and other forms of trashy entertainment. They pander to the worst and not to the best in popular taste. What happens there is that a vast quantity of material is needed hour after hour, day by day, to fill the time of dozens of television programmes, and to satisfy that gargantuan appetite the emphasis must be, not on quality, but on quantity - putting out a tremendous lot as quickly and as cheaply as they can.

Now, I suggest, Sir, if we allow television in Singapore to pass into the hands of the film industry, what will happen will surely be that they will turn to this ready-made source of material for television in Singapore - bought by the mile from the United States and pushed into the minds of the people of Singapore. To me, there is only one answer to this. The Government must discharge its responsibility to see that the minds of the people are not exploited in the interest of big business selling goods. The answer to me is that television should either be entrusted to a Government department, as broadcasting is, and surely if we think it right that broadcasting should be under public control, so much the more must we ensure that television - a far more insidious and potent instrument - should not be put into the hands of vested interests.

I cannot see, Sir, how any person or political Party claiming to adhere to Socialist principles, whether they are Liberal or not, can hand over television, with its tremendous influence on the people in the future of Singapore, to big business. The only reason, as my hon. Friend the Chief Minister has explained, why we come to think of allowing television to be operated by a commercial operator is because of the problem of finance. The Government naturally is chary of accepting a very heavy financial commitment, both in capital and in running costs, when there are so many other prior claims on our resources. The estimates that I have been given are that it will take at least $2 millions of capital and possibly as much as $900,000 a year to cover the current costs. The Cathay Organisation's figures are - I think it is $3 millions in capital and only $500,000 to $600,000 in running costs. So we can take that as the magnitude of the call that would be made on public finance if television was run wholly by the Government.

In this connection, Sir, I should like to take the opportunity of informing the House, with apologies, that there is an error in the printing on the Command Paper which is before us in connection with the Cathay Organisation tender on page 7. The tender speaks of the savings which can accrue by using the Cathay Building and land. The total saving in this direction is printed as $70,000. It should, of course, be $700, 000, as I hope it is clear from the context above. I would like, if I could, to ask the House to take note of that, for which I apologise. There are two other comparatively minor errors on the opposite page where the suggestion about licence fees, that the gross revenue should be "supplied to financing", should be "applied to financing". I do not think the sense is altered really. Lower down there, "The licence of a commercially-operated television station must concentrate", it should, of course, read "licensee".

But the hard fact of the matter is that if we were to operate television by a Government department, we should have to face a very considerable capital investment and a very considerable sum for the running costs, and we should also have to face, what is a very real difficulty in these times, the problem of finding staff and so on. So it is not to me improper that the Government should hesitate to embark on this new venture, but I still say that we should think very well before we do so, and I should like to suggest that we ought to give far more time than we have yet to examining other alternatives.

The amendment, which I support, suggests that television should be handed over to a public corporation. I should like to suggest, at the same time, that we should consider whether we cannot, with advantage, ally television with broadcasting. That is what has happened in other territories. In the United Kingdom, the B.B.C. run both television and broadcasting and it is likely to be so, I understand, in South Africa. I think that it is right in principle that television and broadcasting should go together rather than that television should be split from broadcasting and handed over to the film industry. Now, it is possible that we could raise the finance for television to be run by a public corporation by running television on its own, that is to say, by allowing the corporation to obtain revenue from advertising; but I should like to suggest that we should also examine the possibility of pooling the resources of broadcasting and television, and I would not rule out the possibility that we should allow a degree of advertising in broadcasting in order to increase the revenue. I do not like at all to introduce advertising into broadcasting. I think I possibly have a natural British prejudice against it, but at the same time I would very much prefer to allow advertising to come into a Government-run or a Government-controlled broadcasting system than I would hand over television to a commercial operation.

Reference has been made to what has been done in the United Kingdom. There is one very important lesson for us, I think, from the United Kingdom arrangements. What happened in the United Kingdom was, as hon. Members probably know, that the British Broadcasting Corporation was running both broadcasting and television completely divorced from all commercial influence. The Conservative Government, in pursuit of its general policy to prevent these big public corporations becoming privileged monopolies, wished to introduce an element of competition. That element of competition had to come, of course, from commercial television, but they were quite insistent that they would not surrender television to the free use of any commercial operator. To that end, a somewhat complicated organisation has been set up, the basic features of which are that you have, first of all, a public authority the members of which are appointed by the Minister known as the Independent Television Authority, and that Authority is charged with the responsibility for providing television stations and studios and services, but it is not charged directly with producing programmes. In fact, the law, while telling the Authority that it must see that a high quality is maintained, tells the Authority that it should not produce the programmes. The programmes are produced by a separate organisation known as Programme Contractors. Those are people from the entertainment world and elsewhere who pay the Television Authority to put their programmes on the air. Yet another division is made whereby neither the Authority nor the Programme Contractors are allowed by law to have any connection at all with those who are interested in advertising. So what the British Government has tried to do is to ensure that the content of the programme is in no way influenced by the advertiser. They have drawn a parallel with the cinema and the Press where, although an advertiser pays to put his advertisement in a newspaper or have it shown on the cinema screen, he does not yet, I am thankful to say, write the news or the leading article or produce the film. As the Member for Tanjong Pagar has pointed out, even then a very guarded introduction of commercial operation met with violent opposition in the United Kingdom and it is still subject to very considerable criticism. I think that it is too early to say whether the establishment of the Independent Television Authority is going to succeed in keeping the influence of commercial advertising out of the content of the programmes. The moral for us is that, in introducing commercial competition, a British Conservative Government took the utmost pains to try to ensure that the minds of the British people are not exploited by business for advertising purposes. It is also significant that the Independent Television Authority, while being required to pay its way, was financed initially by advances from the Treasury.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar has referred to what our neighbours the Thai Government have done. They have done what I think we should do, and that is to set up a wholly Government-owned corporation. But my information is the same as the Member for Tanjong Pagar's and that is that the influence of commercial operation in that Government-controlled system in Thailand has resulted in a very low standard of programmes which I hope we shall not see here. It is all very well to suggest that if we give an exclusive licence to a commercial operator, we can ensure control. The first objection I have to that is that we are going to set up a vested interest, and once we set up a vested interest, ultimately the only thing we can do is to buy it over; and if we are going to buy it over, it is going to be extremely expensive. I think we should at least take further thought before we decide to hand television over to business and create a new vested interest in Singapore that somebody in the future will have to take over at vast expense.

Mr Speaker: Order, order, moment of interruption. Debate to be resumed, what day?

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Tomorrow, Sir.

Remaining items on the Order Paper read and ordered for the next day.