PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENTS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read, 6.15 p.m.

The Minister for Communications and Acting Minister for Culture (Mr Ong Teng Cheong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill seeks to amend the Public Entertainments Act to tighten the supervision of public entertainments in Singapore.

"Pin-table" as defined in the present Act means any machine operated by coin or disc. In this Bill the definition has been widened to include any machine operated by electricity or by hand. This will prevent operators of pin-tables from circumventing the provision of the Act by altering the mechanism of the machines.

The term "film" has never been defined in the Act. It is therefore necessary to have a definition. In this Bill, the term "film" has been defined to cover cassette films, video tapes and video records which are being widely used as media of entertainment.

The present definition of public entertainment in the Act includes, among other things, "sporting contests of any kind between any number of persons or animals". With regard to the sporting contests, this Bill seeks to exclude those contests organised by any registered society, trade union, company or association from the definition. 6.20 p.m.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

The Minister for Communications and Acting Minister for Culture (Mr Ong Teng Cheong): Given the present wide range of public entertainments, the Licensing Officer should have greater flexibility in administering the Act. The wordings of sections 10 and 14 of the Act are too restrictive. Section 10 has accordingly been amended to enable the Licensing Officer in issuing a licence to impose such conditions as he thinks fit. Similarly section 14(1) has been amended to enable the Licensing Officer to cancel or suspend a licence if he is satisfied that the public entertainment provided is contrary to the public interest.

As a deterrent to those who contravene the provisions of the Act, the maximum penalty has been increased from a fine of $2,000 to $5,000.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed. 6.22 p.m.

Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the amendments to the Bill, but I would like to seek clarification with regard to clause 4. Clause 4 seeks to add to the original provision, that is, section 14(1), the phrase, "or is contrary to the public interest". The effect of clause 4 of the amendment is to empower the Licensing Authority in the Ministry of Culture to cancel or suspend a licence if he is satisfied that it is contrary to the public interest to provide the entertainment. Implicit in this amendment is that the Licensing Officer will not issue any licence to any person running an establishment which seeks to provide any public entertainment which is not in the public interest. I think this is correct.

I would, therefore, like to seek clarification from the Minister as to what is meant by the term "public interest" in the field of entertainment, and to ask the Minister a specific question in relation to this, i.e. whether he thinks the public entertainment promised by the Playboy Club of Singapore is or is not in the public interest. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hope this is not an unfair question to ask of the Minister. In consideration of this question, I hope the Minister will be guided by the following comment.

According to the advertisement of the Playboy Club in the Straits Times of 26th March, 1979, page 8, the club will provide certain services and facilities, and I am sure Members are interested to hear what these are. On the surface, they appear to be similar to those offered by other entertainment places. These include, "a main restaurant area, VIP room, cocktail lounge, discotheque, health centre, video-tape library, games [what games, I wonder] and board rooms and international shows." Now, Members may ask, what is so objectionable about all these?

In today's Straits Times, page 8 of Section 2, the Playboy advertisement stated it would provide, "very special facilities which are not available in other Singapore Clubs." Unfortunately, it did not give details of what these ..very special facilities" are. But from what I can gather, what is special is that all these services and facilities will be spiced with the Playboy paraphernalia, which will properly reflect the Playboy philosophy. The Club, as we all know, is part of the empire of this person, Hugh Hefner, and its role will be to propagate the Playboy philosophy.

What is the Playboy philosophy? Sir, may I be allowed to quote the Club's advertisement put out today: it states inter alia:

"As a catalyst for positive social change, the Playboy Club initiates and looks for projects that are innovative, experimental and frequently controversial.

Since its inception in 1965, the Foundation has provided extensive support for groups striving to advance human rights and freedom. Its 1978 priorities provided assistance to organizations concerned with the issues of First Amendment freedom, women's rights, drug-law reform, sex-law reform, capital punishment and government surveillance and police spying.

Recent recipients of Playboy Foundation grants include the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, which is seeking to end the death penalty in the United States, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Women's Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union: and the E.R.A. Political Action Committee of Illinois."

Sir, as one Minister perceptively read the statement, it would appear that the Playboy Club is more political than it is recreational. If it is so, it must state so. It is also very clear that the Playboy Club is an American institution, and is a banner of its permissive society. Its worst and pre-dominant feature is its advocacy of total permissiveness and sexual freedom. Its symbol is the Playboy Bunny, which aptly portrays one of its principal beliefs: that the woman is merely an object and plaything of the man; she is all body and no brain. Thus, the Playboy paraphernalia will include the Playboy bunnies, magazines and other articles of interest which cater to the prurient taste of the clients. This is what sets it apart from other entertainment places. Sir, lest Members have the wrong idea, I must confess I have not been inside any Playboy club, nor do I have the wish to visit one.

So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hope the Minister will examine the case carefully and comment on whether the existence of the Playboy Club of Singapore is in the public interest. The Minister should not only consider the types of services and facilities that the Club states it will provide but look into what it stands for. That is really the crux of the issue and on which the Minister must base his decision.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the past few days we have in this House highlighted the need for moral education in schools and the Hon. Minister is also the Chairman of the Committee of Parliamentarians studying this issue. He surely cannot fail to see the relevance of this matter to moral education. Further, as the Acting Minister for Culture, he is the guardian of public morality. I am, therefore, certain that he does not want all his good efforts to go to waste: that is, our moral education programme be undermined by such a brazen organization as the Playboy Club of Singapore.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is a coincidence that the Playboy advertisement in the Straits Times of 26th March, 1979 was published side by side with a story about a case of communist subversion in Singapore. So you see, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the worst of yellow culture represented by the Club and the devious work of red culture represented by the communist cells were displayed side by side. How extraordinary! To me, they symbolise the twin threats to our society; moral decadence and communism are threats to our society that we should constantly guard against and prevent them from overwhelming us, So may I ask the Minister: what is he going to do about this particular threat?

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as Acting Minister for Culture, I have on a number of occasions stated the cultural policy of the Government. One of the aims is to equip our youths with the necessary ballast to withstand the adverse influence of the permissive West. During the last few days, we have heard in this House the emphasis and the need of moral education in our educational system.

I agree with the Member that we should not allow the moral standard of our society to be unnecessarily undermined by activities in the public entertainment field. In view of what I have just stated, the meaning of the term "public interest" is quite obvious. I am afraid I am not familiar with the Playboy philosophy. Like the Member, I have not visited the Playboy Club and I am therefore not familiar with its activities.

The Playboy Club Singapore (Pte) Ltd, as I have ascertained very recently, was registered with the Registry of Businesses in early 1977. It has yet to set up a club premises and yet to conduct any business activities. I will therefore instruct my officials to consult the Attorney-General on the status and proposed activities of this company.

I share the concern of the Member in this regard and I would certainly instruct the Licensing Officer of the Ministry of Culture on the entertainment activity field to keep a close watch and supervision on the activities of this company and to ensure that the conduct and activities of this company will not in any way work be contrary to our public interest.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, how does the Hon. Minister propose to keep a close watch on the activities of the Club?

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Sir, if the club intends to put up any live shows, it will have to apply for a licence from the Ministry of Culture. As the Member has mentioned earlier, according to the advertisement published in the Straits Times by the Club, it intends to have a video tape library and maybe providing viewing rooms for these tapes. If so, I will assure him that all these tapes will have to be submitted to the Film Censorship Board for approval which is the subject of the Cinematograph Films (Amendment) Bill which I will introduce later.

The Acting Minister for Social Affairs (Dr Ahmad Mattar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think it is also the duty of the Consumers Association of Singapore to look after the interest of consumers. Perhaps the hon. Member for Mountbatten would care to comment.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng rose -

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yap, before you start, may I remind you that you have to speak on the merits of the Bill.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng (Mountbatten): Sir, in the public interest, I feel that the Playboy advertisement in today's Straits Times is contrary to public interest because it is rather misleading. Before I go deeper to comment on the Bill, I would venture to say that I have got nothing to do with this club and I have not been following its advertisements at all. I happen to read this advertisement in the Members' Room. I therefore take this opportunity to support the Member for Serangoon Gardens.

First of all, Sir, I submit that the name "Playboy", if it is to serve the intentions of the club as advertised, is misleading. Also some of the words used in the advertisement are couched in vague terms. With your permission, Sir, may I just quote. First, it says it stands for "refinement, distinction and perfection." I wonder in which field of refinement, distinction and perfection?

Secondly, it says the club is against "topless shows", but it does not say what other shows it is not against. Then there is a "taste for excellence." Here again, I would like to point out that it is couched in vague terms. It says, "to provide very special facilities which no other club in Singapore can provide." Also, "in the promotion of tourism in Singapore" - I wonder how they can do this by talking about "public assistance to organisations concerned with the issues of First Amendment freedom, women's rights, drug-law reform, sex-law reform, etc." and then claim that they hope, with that philosophy to create an everlasting impact on the tourists so that they will go back to their homeland as goodwill ambassadors.

Sir, in the public interest, I support the Member for Serangoon Gardens.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Do you wish to reply, Mr Minister?

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: No.

Question put. and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Ong Teng Cheong].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.