NEWSPAPER AND PRINTING PRESSES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

2.51 p.m.

The Minister for Culture (Mr Jek Yeun Thong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Printing Presses Act was originally enacted in 1920. Various amendments, as were found necessary have, since then, been made to the Act, the last one being in 1970. Experience has, however, shown that the provisions of the Act are still inadequate, particularly in relation to the sections concerning the publication of newspapers.

Although a permit is still required for the printing or publication of a newspaper, recent events have shown that it is possible for foreign elements to gain control of our newspapers, and use them for their own ends against our national interest. There is, therefore, need to further amend and update this Act to meet present-day requirements. Under the provisions of the existing Act, as it stands today, foreign interests could obtain control of any newspaper printed and published in Singapore. This is obviously an unhealthy situation.

In May, 1971, for example, the "Eastern Sun", an English language newspaper closed down voluntarily, following exposure by the Government of its having received subventions amounting to nearly HK$8 million from a Communist intelligence agency in Hong-kong. The "Singapore Herald", another English language newspaper, which was also financed with funds from foreign sources, conducted a campaign to mis- lead the people of Singapore especially the English-educated. The Government had, therefore, in 1971, to withdraw its publication permit.

We would be failing in our duty and responsibility to the people of Singapore, if we do not protect our citizens from the manipulations of subversive or hostile elements, operating through our newspapers. Although newspapers are commercial organisations, they have a special responsibility to the society they cater for. They have a duty to always bear in mind their social and political obligations because, as a medium of communication, their influence can be crucial. Singapore, therefore, cannot allow foreign control of any of its newspapers, that is to say, those overseas who may seek to manipulate or influence public opinion through this media. We cannot afford to have "black operations" mounted against us.

The intention of the Bill before us is, therefore, to make a substantial change of the Printing Presses Act to ensure that newspapers are not used as instruments of subversion. Precaution must be taken to prevent the newspaper from being used to poison the minds of its readers by reporting news in a biased way or to reproduce propaganda material "lifted" or cut out from newspapers controlled by foreign countries.

But, while it is necessary to ensure that control of our newspapers remain in the hands of our citizens, the Government also does not wish to upset the commercial operations of newspaper companies, or intervene in the market forces determining the value of their shares. We certainly do not want to get involved in the day-to-day running of newspapers. Management will be free to operate the newspapers as commercial enterprises, provided they ensure that there is no manipulation by foreign elements and that no attempt is made by them, or through their proxies, to glorify undesirable viewpoints and philosophies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is against this backdrop that I have introduced the Newspaper and Printing Presses Bill. The Bill seeks to re-enact, with additions or amendments, certain provisions of the Printing Presses Act (Chapter 258). I do not propose to take the House through the entire Bill, clause by clause, as many of the provisions are re-enactments of the existing Act. I would like, however, to touch on some of the salient points of the Bill.

Permits will still be required for the printing and publication of newspapers, but all newspaper companies will have to go public, unless there is some special difficulty, perhaps on account of size in going public. In such cases, the Minister will be empowered to grant special exemptions.

All newspapers will have to be locally managed; the members of the Board of Management will have to be Singapore citizens.

In a newspaper company, there will be two classes of shares, namely, management shares and ordinary shares. There is, no restriction to the ownership of ordinary shares; however, the issue and transfer of management shares must have the approval of the Minister, and such approval will only be given to citizens of Singapore, or to such corporations which have been granted approval by the Minister. This arrangement is necessary, since the total voting rights of the management shares is greater than that of the ordinary shares.

All foreign investments injected into the newspaper must have the approval of the Minister; this is to ensure that the Government is not kept in the dark as regards the real ownership of capital of newspapers. In this way, we will be able to ensure that the management of the newspapers will always be in the hands of our citizens, and the policies also determined by our citizens.

It will be appreciated that ample notice has been given to the newspapers of the Government's intention to make major Singapore newspapers to go public - in fact, that indication was given as early as January last year. However, in order to ensure that there will be adequate opportunity for all interested parties to air their views and make such representation as they might deem necessary, the Government has decided to send this Bill to a Select Committee.

As I mentioned earlier, it is not the intention of Government to interfere unduly in the affairs of the Press. The sole purpose is to safeguard our national interest and the well-being of our citizens.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.00 p.m.

Mr L. P. Rodrigo (Serangoon Gardens): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the main provisions of the Bill to make it law that all Singapore citizens can have a right to fashion the policy of the newspaper. This is in line with the argument that if one's survival depends on keeping the boat on an even keel as it charts its way through unpredictable seas, then it is in the interest of that person not to provoke any kind of a disequilibrium of the boat.

In the Singapore context, Sir, a responsible newspaper is a critical factor in the well-being of the nation. The newspaper provides information upon which members of our society conduct intense communication among themselves, between themselves and the Government, form impressions, construct convictions and make decisions. It is imperative, therefore, as far as is reasonably possible and democratically feasible, that news and information offered by the newspaper are responsible news resulting from the responsible policies of the management comprising responsible citizens of Singapore, whose stakes are in this country and in this country only. In a world of super powers, super nationalisms and monolithic commercial organisations, Sir, which contend for power and profit, Singapore is a consideration in their strategy of operations, and in my view the sooner we rise up to this fact, the sooner will we begin to ensure our own national security.

I also support, Sir, the committal of this Bill to Select Committee.

Mr Yeo Choo Kok (Delta): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the whole intention of this Bill may be summed up in one sentence, that is, in future newspapers in Singapore will only be run by Singapore citizens with the permission of the Minister in charge. As the Bill stands, the whole spirit of the Bill lies in Part III, which gives the Minister very extensive powers, particularly in clause 9.

The appointment of directors on the board must be approved by the Minister. But the Bill does not provide how any citizen of Singapore can be approved by the Minister to be a holder of management shares. It does not say how an application is to be made, whether it should be on a specified form or whether it is to be by letter.

On the question of funds, of course, we can prevent a local newspaper from obtaining foreign sources of finance. But we cannot control the content of the newspapers, and therefore we may not prevent incidents similar to what had happened before, and certain undesirable events may happen again. We have seen incidents in Sri Lanka which were mainly due to newspaper influences. Now, there are embassies and consulates in our midst, and they can pay substantial amounts on advertisements to publicise through the newspapers any article of a political content, such as how great a certain political machinery or thought is, what it has produced, and what a great personage the ruler is, etc. This is very dangerous. Once we have diplomatic relations with more countries, more embassies and consulates will be set up in Singapore, and every one of them can by paying advertisement charges publicise in our local newspapers as to how great are their great political leaders, how good are their political systems, and so on. Under such circumstances, with a multi-racial setup as ours, would it be good for Singapore? They can carry across their messages through such advertisements and publicity in our newspapers. Even underground agencies or undesirable elements can also make use of the newspapers to convey their message if they want to.

Just now the Minister has said in his speech that the intention of the Bill is to ensure that newspapers in Singapore will in future be under the control of Singapore citizens, but it also does not wish to upset the commercial operations of newspaper companies. But a commercial establishment does not usually care very much about politics, social conscience or any other thing except profits. So a newspaper can publicise articles to suit some people with ulterior motive.

I would now refer to clause 11 of Part III. This applies only to any newspaper published at intervals not exceeding one week. In other words, if a newspaper is published less than once a week, say, every eight days, once a month or longer, such a newspaper can be exempted from the provisions of this Part. If that is the case, then the purpose of this Bill may be defeated. So I hope this aspect of the Bill will be well considered by the Select Committee.

About the management shares being in the hands of our citizens, as I have pointed out, certain publicity can still go through the newspaper, and they may not effectively exercise their control through the means as provided. Now there is the suggestion of establishing a Press Council, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs has spoken about it. Perhaps this Press Council can provide some guidance for the newspapers. However, with all these provisions, anybody, including a journalist or a citizen, if he wants to, can still exercise subversive influence through the newspaper. So I hope the Select Committee can look into this.

Dr Ong Leong Boon (Kim Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support, in principle, the introduction of this Bill. I think it is unquestionable that the spirit and intention of the Bill is good.

However, I would just like to add my own comments on what I feel are the important points. There are provisions in this Bill for reference to be made to the Minister, and giving the Minister certain powers to decide. This is, I am sure, a good point. But what I would caution as a possible reaction is that a decision of the Minister might be interpreted as partial or biased at times. I do not wish to question the Minister on this point, but I am just suggesting that the number of references or provisions allowing reference to the Minister may by itself create a problem and misinterpretation. I think it is important for us to realise that in Singapore today we have a great desire and a need for a constructive and responsible press. This is one laudable objective. The second is that we have to ensure and provide for adequate measures to prevent subversive activities or subversion in Singapore through the mass media. To meet this end, this Bill is appropriate.

I would like to point out that there is a possible side effect of this Bill. But it is my hope that the measures contained in the Bill will not lead to a curbing of genuine public expression to the extent of stifling a healthy debate on issues of national and international interest through the mass media. I think this point has to be taken very seriously and I am sure that the Hon. Minister has this point in mind when he decided to commit this Bill to a public hearing. I give him my whole-hearted support.

With these comments and reservation, I wish to express once again my support for the Newspaper and Printing Presses Bill.

Mr Lai Tha Chai (Henderson): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support this Bill. In my view, this Bill is one way to deal with the entry of "devils" and "demons" from foreign countries, as our cultural ballast is too weak at the moment. We can still see newspapers glorifying the fads and fetishes of the West, emphasising individualism. While some girls wear mini-skirts to show off their thighs without any sense of shame, others wear the maxis which are long enough to drag along the road, without realising that their skirts will be dirtied. All these fads and fetishes and fashions have been played up and glorified through the medium of the newspapers. On the other hand, we can also see the relics of conservatism and feudalistic colours from the East. I do not know why the newspapers should always publish full-page advertisements in glorification of the dead in the oriental tradition. I do not know the actual meaning behind all this. If this state of affairs is allowed to continue, it will perpetuate the contradictions, anomalies and even anachronisms in Singapore. All these anachronisms and contradictions can be made use of and exploited by ambitious elements from foreign sources, as pointed out by the Minister when he said that there was an attempt at exploitation of newspapers through black operations. But for the timely decision taken to deal with such a situation, I am afraid the stability of Singapore, and even this House, would have changed.

Sir, in a country like Singapore, which is subject to foreign influences, we must build up our own culture through a selection of good foreign cultural influences. Of course, this is easier said than done. It is, therefore, necessary to institute measures such as those provided in this Bill, introduced by the Minister. In other words, this Bill seeks to transfer the control of the newspapers from some private hands into the hands of Singapore citizens. By these means we would be able to resist the interference by some ambitious foreign elements. Furthermore, I should also point out that when a private newspaper enterprise is controlled by a small group of people, the journalists are already known to suffer badly. Newspaper business is a profitable one. The leading Chinese newspapers make millions of dollars' profit per annum, but the journalists in such newspaper establishments, i.e, those who have to crack their heads and rack their brains, have not been properly remunerated. They have also not been allowed to have a share in the profits of the business. As the Member for Delta has pointed out, we should be able to improve the conditions of service of the journalists in Singapore through the establishment of a Press Council or any such body. Only then will journalists in Singapore be able to do a better job in the service and interest of our nation, and also to enrich our cultural heritage. Therefore, in view of this, I fully support this Bill.

I would also like to take this opportunity to propose to the Government that apart from the negative approach to control by getting rid of undesirable influences, we should also adopt the positive approach for support of our cultural development. For example, the Ministry of Culture is now publishing the Mirror and also a radio and television magazine. However, I do not think this is adequate. Therefore, apart from the annual reports, which are inadequate, other Government Ministries and statutory bodies should also publish magazines containing materials of cultural value, including biographies. I would like to quote one example. Today I read a short article which reminds me of a certain reputable person, the late Mr Lee Kong Chian. He was a man of praiseworthy ambition and exemplary conduct. He is an example of a national asset. Although I cannot hope to do what he had done, I can at least look up to the ideals of his achievements. Therefore, we must try to record his words and deeds in some kind of publication so that Singapore citizens can learn from him. This is what I mean by the adoption of a positive approach as distinct from the negative approach to control.

I would suggest that we must also adopt the positive approach by giving support to the encouragement of a constructive cultural development in our nation building. In this way we will be able to strengthen and consolidate our cultural front in the task of nation building. Then it will not be so easy for our people to be influenced by foreigners.

Finally, Sir, I would reiterate my support for this Bill and its committal to the Select Committee for further consideration.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Lim Guan Hoo): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Culture has just introduced the Second Reading of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Bill, and I fully support him from the bottom of my heart. Sir, the introduction of this Bill is the very natural reflection of certain aspects of life in Singapore. Some people may associate this Bill with some kind of interference or control of the freedom of the press. Mr Speaker, Sir, in a country like Singapore which practises democracy, the freedom of the press is, of course, a matter of tradition. But if the people are to assume that the freedom of the press is something separate from the national interest, then it is not a healthy belief. No matter how sincere the directors or managers of newspapers may be and although they are without any political blots, it does not mean that their newspapers will be free from outside influence or unblemished as the directors and management personnel themselves. We have experienced attempts at black operations in the past. Black operations have come to be associated with the publication of news. We can, therefore, learn a lesson from this experience. And that is, in any country, newspapers of any type -whether it is a political, cultural, financial or movie newspaper - can be controlled, influenced or infiltrated by undesirable elements because the newspaper is a good means of disseminating propaganda. Once a newspaper is published, it is read by thousands and thousands of people in the home, in the office, or even in the toilet. It is because of the inherent and formidable influence of the newspaper that there is always the temptation for ambitious foreign elements to come in.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in our midst we have a lot of journalists, who are now Ministers. I can mention the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Culture, the Parliamentary Secretary, and even some Backbenchers. For example, the Member for Henderson is the editor of the Petir (Chinese edition) and another Member is also the editor of the Jurong Newspaper. I myself was the former editor of the Petir (Chinese edition). So in our midst we have a number of journalists, and this instance is enough to indicate the close connection between politics and journalism. In the light of these facts and realities, there are some people who even dream dreams of freedom of the press. They are obsessed with the freedom of the press. However, these facts are enough to serve as an eye-opener to such dreamers.

The Bill in this House seeks to ensure that the control of newspapers will always remain in the hands of our citizens and not in the hands of foreigners. This is, in fact, the very spirit of this Bill, as indicated by the Member for Delta. Whether this Bill is adequate to ensure what we want to achieve is something we have to think about. For example, under the Bill, shares of newspaper companies are to be classified into two categories, management shares and ordinary shares. Management shares can only be transferred to citizens approved by the Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the People's Action Party has gone through many years of political struggle. Through all our experiences in the struggle we have come to a situation where we have two types of membership in the PAP, the cadre membership and the ordinary membership. With these two classes of membership, we are able to ensure that control of a very influential political party like ours does not fall into the wrong hands. And if the management of newspapers can use a similar provision in the Bill wisely and with an enlightened view, they will be able to promote the interest of the country. Then only will the Bill be able to achieve what it seeks.

I would also like to point out some of my misgivings. I am afraid that some newspaper men may misunderstand and think that the introduction of this Bill is just to control the press. This is not the case. As a matter of fact, bona fide newspaper men can, with the provisions of this Bill, do their job more efficiently and without fear. This Bill seeks to exercise some kind of check to ensure that the right people are in control of management shares and to prevent undesirable elements from owning management shares and thus gain control of the newspapers. In this way, bona fide newspaper men will be able to carry out their duties with peace of mind. When the Bill is passed, I hope such newspaper men will carry out their duties more positively and efficiently, particularly those who are thinking of publishing academic magazines or newspapers.

Notwithstanding what I have said, Sir, we still have some newspapers of good standing. Newspapers which do good deeds will receive good rewards. However, there are newspapers which publish undesirable news items, articles or reports in order to attract a wider readership. I hope that after the final passage of this Bill, such a newspaper will be able to develop from a mosquito newspaper into a medium-sized newspaper and from a medium-sized newspaper into a large newspaper. The small or mosquito newspapers actually depend on crime reports or even sex stories to boost their sales. Such mosquito newspapers seem to paint a chaotic state of the world because the more chaotic the world is the more news they can publish, and the more sensationalism they can whip up the greater the boost to their sales. It is my hope that after the passage of this Bill, these newspapers will develop along a healthier direction in the interest of the people. With this hope I reiterate my full support for this Bill.

3.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour (Mr Fong Sip Chee): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the air of light-heartedness will not diminish the gravity of this Bill. Two years ago, when I was still in the Ministry of Culture, I dwelt on this same topic in this House - perhaps, the newspapers at that time did not give a fair description of my views then. But this is a trivial matter.

Several Members have expressed their views on the influence of newspapers on culture, the very freedom of the press itself and foreign influence making inroads into Singapore. They also rightly commented on certain activities of the newspapers that were irrelevant as far as our people were concerned.

But I feel that our main consideration for the passage of this Bill is based on national interest and security. We have to explain to the people the measures we now take lest they may feel that the introduction of this Bill is merely to exercise control over the English, Chinese and other newspapers. It must be made clear and the people must realise that what we are doing is in the interest of our country. What is important is that if a newspaper is in the hands of foreigners - as we all know the newspaper is a very effective public medium - and acts against the interest of our country, we must be vigilant against this manoeuvre and must necessarily nip it in the bud.

Certain foreigners had publicised their own thoughts and ideas through our newspapers. Articles were written on what was labelled as "one-party monopoly" and on the question of parliamentary democracy in Singapore, lamenting the fact that there was no opposition in Parliament. What they advocated was the simplistic view that since there was no opposition in Parliament, there was no democracy. All these talks were nonsensical utterances. They viewed Singapore with a foreign standpoint and through tinted glasses. The result, of course, was that events were distorted and consequently confused the views of the people. These foreign journalists judged local events according to their own philosophies, standards and their own mental makeup. What may be acceptable to them, perhaps, would be a situation obtained in line with their own liking. What they failed to understand, and we are very conscious, is that our way of life, philosophy and attitude towards life are quite different from their own and since they do not see any similarity between Singapore and their country, they simply equate the situation as the non-existence of democracy and that ours is a "one-party monopoly" - or other evil things like that. Of course, not all foreign journalists are ignorant of the facts of life in Singapore, some were even appreciative of the situation here but there were others, awareness of the facts not- withstanding, deliberately behaved in a manner as dictated by their "behind-the curtain masters". It is not my intention to place all foreign journalists in this category but even they would accept that there were a few black sheep among them. It is understandable that foreign journalists have to make a living by selling their articles and news reports.

There were articles specially written to criticize the method of governmental administration, implying high-handedness on the part of the Government in exerting pressure on certain newspapers and the journalistic circles. All these were calculated to create a confusion of mind and subvert the country's peace and order. It must be emphasized that when the chips are down, it was Singapore that would be responsible to ensure peace and order in our society. None of those who branded Singapore with all sorts of mischievous names could state in black and white that they, and they alone, could guarantee that peace and order in Singapore would not break down. What happened in the event of a chaotic situation that they helped bring about? Far from being able to assist, they would just make quick exit from the country and then retire into their bedroom to write articles on the situation and continue to earn their fees. Is that the kind of contribution they could make to Singapore?

Even in Australia there was a time when members of the public were stirred when they learnt that a foreign newspaper tycoon was attempting to take over a certain local newspaper there.

As I said earlier, there are those who view us in a different light and through their tinted glasses. Whatever we do, they react with scepticism. They seem to have strange imaginations about everything that we are trying to do for the good of our people. What we desire is a situation where the wishes and thinking of the people can be expressed truly through the newspapers, in short, the press should reflect the aspirations of Singaporeans and not foreigners. There were some newspapers who supported the views of other countries against their own viewpoints. This, perhaps, was intended to net in a wider readership. The question of the Straits of Malacca was a good example in point. This showed that we do have parasites even among our own journalists who are prepared to repeat what others say and echo them without considering the effects or consequences as a result of their toeing the policies of other countries.

A journalist is just like anybody else. Everyone has his own character and personality. Likewise, a journalist should have his own professional integrity, personality and character. It is a pity that there are people who are only interested in fees and circulation and therefore seek to publish news or views that will cause public sensationalism. I had the opportunity to discuss this matter with one of them who remarked that "Whilst in business, let's talk business." I bluntly told him that if what he really wanted was mere business, then he should find it more profitable to launch into some other kind of enterprises and certainly not the newspapers because a newspaper should not be only a money-making proposition. I further added that there are many other ways to make money other than irresponsible writing in the newspapers. In fact, writing is a very hard way to make a living and if money is what one is after, then certainly the newspaper is the wrong place.

The Member for Henderson commented on certain reports which my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs, did not seem to agree to. I will give just one example to illustrate what effects the choice of news reports can make in the community. There was quoted in a certain newspaper a robbery case in a foreign country. A clipping of that newspaper was sent to Singapore for publication. At the risk of being accused of creating an uproar in this House, let me briefly describe the contents of this news report as I think it is a very serious matter. The report said that a gang of robbers entered into a house and on failing to find anything valuable, they became furious and castrated a child whom they found in the house. This news item of atrocious brutality was a sensational news item in that country and every full stop and comma of this news report was reproduced in one of our local newspapers. What was it they hoped to achieve by quoting this article? Was it meant to reflect the comparative security of Singapore or was it meant to introduce or give ideas to our local criminals? Therefore, there must be certain principles which the editors must adopt in the choice and publication of news items.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the main objective of this Bill is to ensure that newspapers should reflect the views and aspirations of our citizens. It cannot be denied that the newspaper is also an educational medium for the public and it has also a duty to educate and enlighten the community. Through its circulation, it can positively help in our efforts in nation building and in the maintenance of law and order. In short, the newspaper must work in the interest of the country and the people rather than for the sheer profit to fill the pockets of a small group of individuals.

Sir, I support this Bill.

3.42 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill in toto. Although what I wanted to say has already been said, there is just one point I wish to mention. I feel that there is one clause in the Bill which is a little too preponderant. In Part III, clause 9 (2) says:

`No newspaper company shall refuse to issue management shares to any person who has been granted the written approval of the Minister to purchase such shares.' I feel that this is a little too drastic, and I hope to present certain views on this point when this Bill is sent to Select Committee.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin (Jalan Kayu): Mr Speaker, Sir, I promise to be very brief. Clause 10 prohibits the receipt of funds from a foreign source. The intention is quite clear. But on reading it, I am a little concerned that the clause, if implemented in its present form, may also be used as a means of subversion against us. For example, if someone dislikes a particular pressman, it can be so easily arranged for a certain sum of money to be deposited into a bank account in that individual's name. Having done so, an anonymous report can then be made to the Minister and, if the consequent investigations are not objective and thorough enough, miscarriage of justice could arise. I am not a lawyer. I do not know what the legal implications are, but I am just wondering whether there are adequate safeguards for our pressmen. I hope this point will be looked into by the Select Committee.

3.44 p.m.

Mr P. Selvadurai (Kuo Chuan): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an important Bill, one that is bound to provoke controversy both within and outside Singapore. It brings to the fore once again the peculiar problems faced by small strategically located developing States that are endeavouring to transform their socio-economic structures without compromising their independence internationally on the basis of democratic institutions. Sad to say, the Bill also demonstrates the fragile base on which educated opinion in Singapore moves. It is a pity too that despite the phenomenal strides that we have made in education over the last 20 years, no newspaper has emerged in Singapore as a national institution serving the national interest.

It was still possible only a few years ago for a combination of foreign interests to mount the Singapore Herald to confuse and divide educated opinion on issues that were vital to the social peace and security of Singapore. There were no in-built checks and balances to contain the operation. The State had to step in.

Popular political thinking defines democratic politics in terms of a few fundamental freedoms, of which freedom of the press is one. But, unlike the other fundamental freedoms, the freedom of the press has become over the last hundred years or so the handmaiden of vast economic interests. In the context of Singapore these interests have always been international in character. In the final analysis the press in South-east Asian states has to-date been controlled by foreign rather than national interests. It is this situation that we have to meet in the course of our political development.

Having said this, Sir, one wonders if the Bill has not gone too far than was necessary in regulating the problem. The provision that management shares could only be held by Singapore citizens with the approval of the Minister appears to be too drastic, on the face of it. It would be preferable to leave the management shares in the hands of Singapore citizens regardless of Ministerial approval but with the negative stipulation that no management shares shall be refused to persons who have been approved by the Minister. The provisions of clause 10 are more than sufficient and adequate to deal with the problems posed by foreign financial control of national press. The experiment is an interesting one. Time only will tell if the aims and objectives of the Bill are achieved and also whether in the process we have stifled free, frank and fearless discussion of issues that vitally concern the nation.

3.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Mr Govindaswamy?

Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson): Sir, in fact, I do not want to speak on this Bill, but since Mr Speaker has called me I might as well say something.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Bill. But we must not be too strict in our control of the newspapers, for if we do they cannot be published. That is very bad. The newspaper must be given some freedom, otherwise people will say that it is controlled by the Government. Therefore, the Minister must consider giving some freedom to the newspaper. However, I fully support the Bill. Since this Bill is going to the Select Committee, most probably we will get public opinion.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Sir, first of all, I must thank Members for their enthusiastic support for this Bill. Many of them have been very articulate and, in fact, they have made longer speeches than I expected. I must take this opportunity to assure Members of the House and also members of the public that it is not the intention of the Government to go into the newspaper business. Our intention is to see that newspapers are properly managed and that they cannot be taken over by undesirable elements which may then direct their policies against the interests of our nation. That is the sole purpose of this Bill.

The Member for Kim Seng and the Member for Kuo Chuan have to a certain extent mentioned the fear that the Bill might be delegating undue powers to the Minister or the Government for control of the press. Those fears exist in the minds of many people. I think it should be sufficient to allay the fears of these people when I say that it is not the intention of the Government to take over the newspapers but to see that a free press is allowed to be conducted in Singapore. It is certainly not our intention to curb the genuine expression of public opinion. In fact, it is to our interest that those opinions should be allowed to be expressed. Let the flowers bloom. In a situation like ours it is quite important that the man-in-the-street should be given the opportunity to express his opinion, whether it is about buses, the Ministry of Culture's TV programmes or other matters. He should be given the opportunity to express his opinion publicly and there is no other medium better than the press. We would like to see this sort of freedom existing in Singapore. However, many very important views have been expressed by Members, and I am sure that these views will be taken care of when the Bill is considered by the Select Committee.

There are some minor points which I should touch on briefly. The Member for Delta has queried: since the management shares are so important that their voting rights are greater than those of the ordinary shares, what type of citizens will be allowed to own these management shares? We have not come to that stage yet; let us cross the bridge when we come to it. I am sure the Minister for Home Affairs will be able to advise me as to which type of citizens will be allowed to own those shares.

We have, in fact, considered a Press Council for a very long time, but we found that it is not practicable under our present conditions. First of all, who is to be the Chairman? Who gives the order? Who lays down policies? These are all very complicated matters, and I think it would be better that the press be allowed to manage themselves. Therefore, we have introduced these management shares to ensure that only the right people are allowed to exercise the powers of management of newspapers. The Members for Bukit Merah and Henderson and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour have also offered very good advice to the newspaper directors as to how they should run the newspapers and what sort of articles should be put in to attract more readers, and so on. I hope the newspapers concerned will take note of their advice and make improvements to the contents of their newspapers. Apart from those comments, Sir, I have nothing more to add.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Resolved,

"That the Newspaper and Printing Presses Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection." - [Mr Jek Yeun Thong].