COPYRIGHT BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 11.13 am

The Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The existing copyright law in Singapore is contained in the Copyright Act 1911 of the United Kingdom, as modified in its application to Singapore by the Copyright Act of 1914 and the Copyright (Gramophone Records and Government Broadcasting) Act of 1968. Over the years, developments in the field of computer science, sound and video recording, cable television, satellite broadcasting and photocopying require us to amend our copyright laws to keep abreast of these developments.

The improved copyright provisions will provide a better environment for the publishing industry in Singapore. They will give an incentive to both local and foreign printing and publishing companies to expand their activities here. By extending copyright protection to new forms of intellectual property, particularly computer software, they will provide the legal framework necessary for the development of a strong software industry here. Major international computer companies and software houses planning to set up software development centres in Singapore can be assured that the products will be adequately protected.

Beyond our own requirements, I should also mention that in recent years one significant source of friction with our trading partners, particularly the United States, has been the inadequacy of our existing copyright laws. The Government has for some time recognized their concerns, and stated its intention to introduce new legislation to remedy the problem. I hope that the introduction of this Bill will remove one contentious issue and so improve our relations with these partners.

The Bill is the result of the deliberations of an Inter-departmental Committee set up by the Ministry of Law some five years ago to review the existing copyright law.

The Bill is modelled largely on Australia's copyright law which was found most suitable bearing in mind our legal system, our need to be up-to-date and comprehensive. However, the legal draftsmen had also adapted the provisions to the particular circumstances in our country and, where necessary, had followed provisions on some aspects found in the laws of other countries.

Sir, under the Bill, a work first published in Singapore regardless of the nationality of the authors, would be eligible for copyright protection. Works published elsewhere and simultaneously published in Singapore within a 30-day period will be regarded as first published in Singapore. In the case of unpublished works only the works of Singapore citizens and residents would enjoy copyright protection. As is the case with legislation of most other countries, there are provisions in the Bill for Singapore to confer copyright protection on foreign works, whether published elsewhere or unpublished, through bilateral arrangements or through accession by Singapore to international copyright conventions.

Under the Bill, computer software is specifically protected as a form of literary work.

The Bill gives a number of exclusive rights to the copyright owners. For literary, dramatic, or artistic works, for instance, the owner has the exclusive right, among other things, to reproduce, publish, perform in public, broadcast and include the work in cable programmes. In the case of sound recordings, cinematographic films, television and sound broadcasts, cable programmes and published editions, the owner has the exclusive right to reproduce or copy the work. The owner of copyright in a cinematographic film has, in addition, the right to cause the film to be seen or heard in public, to broadcast it and include it in a cable programme service. The owner of a television or sound broadcast has also the right to broadcast it. It would be an infringement of copyright to do any of these acts without the permission or licence of the copyright owner.

The Bill, however, provides a number of exceptions to the general rule on infringement of copyright. For instance, there are provisions on fair dealing with a copyright work for research or study, for criticism or review or for the reporting of news and these do not constitute infringement. There are also other exceptions for the reproduction of works for judicial proceedings or professional advice or by libraries and for the broadcast of works in certain types of public places.

The term of protection provided under existing laws is retained. Copyright subsists in a work from the time it is made and continues to subsist until the expiration of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author died.

There are provisions in the Bill providing that under certain conditions any person can produce records of musical works upon the payment of royalties to the copyright owner. Provisions are also made for the issuance of licences by the copyright Tribunal for the translation and reproduction of certain works. These provisions are modelled on what are known as the Tunis Model Law prepared by the World Intellectual Property Organization and are compatible with the exceptions permitted in international copyright conventions for developing countries to produce cheap editions for their people.

A copyright Tribunal is established under the Bill with wide jurisdiction to determine the remuneration payable under statutory licences and to settle licence disputes in relation to performing and broadcasting rights.

Both civil and criminal remedies for infringement of copyright are provided for in the Bill. The relief that a Court may grant in a civil suit includes an injunction and either damages or an account of profits. The criminal remedies include the issuance of warrants by Magistrates for search and seizure of equipment used or intended to be used in making infringing copies of works. The importation of infringement copies could be prohibited under the law. Stiffer penalties than in the existing law are also prescribed for offences under the Bill.

The provisions of the Bill will enable Singapore to accede to the Universal Copyright Convention should this be found to be desirable. By joining the Convention, Singapore would be obliged to extend copyright protection to works and other subject-matter published in member countries of the Convention or unpublished works and other subject-matter of those countries. But it also means that Singaporeans' works and works published in Singapore are protected in those countries.

There are transitional provisions that apply to works and other subject-matter made before the commencement of the new legislation.

Sir, in drafting this Bill, the Government has had due regard to the interests of the various parties concerned, be they copyright owners, industry or consumers. Many parties will undoubtedly have an interest in the Bill. Therefore, it is proposed that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee to allow further and thorough airing of these views and a more detailed examination to be made of the provisions of the Bill.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed. 11.23 am

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, infringement, alleged or real, of intellectual properties, such as musical works, films in the form of video cassettes and computer software for microcomputers, has given Singapore a less than favourable impression. Recent articles in newspapers and magazines highlighted this. The Far Eastern Economic Review, for example, in its 24th April issue reported that Motion Picture Association of America reckons that its members lose at least US$11 million annually because of illegally recorded video tapes in Singapore. The article also mentioned that Singapore is the largest exporter of pirated music cassettes in the world. Another article, using the same figures, expressing essentially the same sentiments, also appeared in the 12th April issue of The Economist. The wordings are so similar that the two articles could very well have been written by the same reporter.

The Straits Times, on 8th April 1986, carried a report quoting a British Parliamentary Under-Secretary that the United Kingdom lost o70 million or S$222 million because of pirated goods like books and musical recordings from Singapore.

No one has said whether these figures could be substantiated. Perhaps it has become fashionable to estimate revenue loss and attribute it to Singapore. It does not matter to the authors of these articles that there are other countries with very high activities in pirated goods as well and sometimes with quality superior to those of Singapore. To them, Singapore is it. Of course, the problem is that some of the people reading these articles are going to believe them and, like it or not, the perception of extensive copyright piracy activities in Singapore is perpetrated.

This perception is also extended to computer software. I would like to state here, and let it be very clear from the beginning, that the subject about computer software is not about large mainframe software, such as operating systems, database languages and data communications software. This software is too complex and requires so much support from vendors that just making a copy is of not much use to anyone. The users of this software are major corporations and government bodies anyway. So there is no problem here.

The subject is actually micro-computer software for home use or personal use. In this case, I believe that the extent of software duplication in Singapore is no worse than elsewhere. Definitely, the situation in the US could be just as bad. If we take a look at all the copybreaking software and see where they originate, they have actually all been written in the US for the US market. In terms of dollar revenue loss through piracy, I believe the amount in the US or elsewhere would have been astronomical as well. Yet no one really gripes about it. Such is the nature of the personal computer market.

In any event the perception exists. It is not uncommon for micro-computer software vendors to avoid bringing their products to Singapore, or at least they say so, under the impression that their product, once it is introduced to Singapore, there will be no market for it thereafter. More importantly, without proper protection computer software companies might avoid investing in Singapore and such companies have been identified as one of the high-tech industries of the future. Without proper protection, the development of a home-grown computer software industry will definitely be retarded.

Moreover, the US Congress has passed a Trade Act in 1984 tying the benefits of the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) to copyright protection. That the widespread impression of Singapore being a country where violations are rampant, regardless of whether it is a myth or fact, will cause difficulties in trade negotiations. Thus, I support the Government and it is timely for the Government to introduce this Bill.

The Bill seeks to regularize the duplication of printed matters, songs, video and cable programmes as well as computer software. The Bill clearly spells out that computer software is an intellectual property which would help in the prosecution of violators. Both fines and imprisonment terms have been increased in this Bill as compared to the 1911 Copyright Act.

Clause 26 of this Bill states that copyright protection can be acquired if it is the work of a Singapore citizen or resident. Alternatively, if the work is published or sufficient copies are available in Singapore for distribution (for sale or otherwise) within 30 days of its original announcement or release elsewhere as stated in clause 23, subclause (5).

The last provision would have made it a bit difficult for some foreign companies to acquire copyright in Singapore. For example, movie makers, since a movie is typically shown much later than 30 days after its world premiere elsewhere. In the case of micro-computer software, most of the companies involved in this trade are in the US. They are small and without overseas offices. As such, the 30-day restriction might be a bit too stringent. Only a handful of such companies would have benefited from this Bill while the small software developers would not be protected. The net result is that the bigger companies would release their products soon after its announcement elsewhere which is a good thing. But for the majority of micro-computer software companies, the situation would be no different from now. I urge the Minister to look into this carefully. A bilateral agreement or ratification of the 1952 Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) would have resolved this difficulty and should be considered when the circumstances are right.

It is noted that the Bill has been drafted in such a way that as and when bilateral agreements or when the Government decides to ratify the UCC, no modification of the Bill is necessary. Clause 199 seems to preclude copyrights of all existing products when this Bill takes effect. In other words, copyright protection might not be provided retroactively. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us whether this is true that no protection or no prosecution of violation of old works could be pursued by the aggrieved private parties.

There has also been concern that the Copyright Bill will hamper the pursuit of knowledge, particularly in the educational institutions. I am happy to note that Part III of the Bill deals with this quite adequately with Copying of Works in Libraries covered in Division 5 and the Copying of Works in Educational Institutions covered in Division 6, as I read it. In the case of computer software, clauses 52 and 53 seem to preclude educational institutions from the provision of this Bill. Perhaps the Minister can comment on this. This is important as the instruction of micro-computer software would necessarily mean that in a class of, say, 25 students, each with his own computer, 25 copies of the same software would have been required. Without this preclusion under the provision, the cost of the software required for those courses would have made such courses prohibitive. What is a bit vague here is the use of the software in the educational institutions for their own non-teaching use, such as administrative and consultancy purposes.

Moreover, the rapid advancement of computer technology might have overtaken the considerations of the Bill. The Bill is silent on the use of computer software in a computer network environment, such as a local area network supporting micro-computers. In this situation, a copy of the computer program is stored in the network service computer known as the network server. As and when the user uses the program, an electronic copy of the program is transmitted over the network into the user's workstation. Since educational institutes may make copies of the software anyway, can they put such software onto the network server without paying for a site licence or a network licence? For private users, is such transient copying a violation of the copyright provisions of the Bill?

With Singapore's growth as a developed country and a cultured society, the protection of the intellectual properties is necessary. For example, the popularity of Xinyao indicates that there is a group of budding talents in Singapore. On top of the cultural development, the emerging of a homegrown micro computer industry with companies like Creative Technology, necessitates the implementation of the Bill. These provisions will give them the protection and, in turn, the fiscal incentives they need in their formative years.

The Bill touches almost everyone in their daily life. I therefore support the Minister's move to commit this Bill to a Parliamentary Select Committee for detailed consideration.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I of course rise to support the Bill in principle and to assure the Government of my Party's support in its efforts to protect the intellectual property of people who contribute to the progress of society, either in literary, musical or artistic works.

The Minister himself and the last Member have voiced the concern felt in countries outside Singapore about the pirating in Singapore of intellectual properties emanating from these countries. But it is not just concern felt by these other countries; there is also concern felt by our local companies and by local authors. And we should primarily protect our local people from deprivation of their economic gain from their intellectual properties. I remember the concern that was felt by our local authors some years ago at the delay in the Government's declared intention to bring in a new Bill, and I asked a question about this sometime then.

So we do, of course, support this Bill. This Bill is necessary, as the Minister said, if we are to have good relations with our trading partners. But may I raise a concern for a particular class. This is the matter of textbooks for students. It has been mentioned by the last Member that copyright may perhaps unnecessarily hinder or hamper the acquisition of knowledge. Of course, these are the two competing interests - the availability of knowledge in any form and the need to protect the property rights of the authors of that knowledge.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in this affluent society of ours we expect our children to buy all their textbooks, and I know that in many families the cost of these books is a burden to them. I note and I am aware that the Act has provision for fair use, making fair use not an infringement of copyright, and there is also provision for library copies. But I wonder whether this would be adequate enough to cover the concern that I have for students' textbooks. I am told that not only are the students' books expensive, books that have come from other countries, but they are also not readily available in many cases. So I wonder whether the Ministry of Education or the Government would consider making special arrangements for the availability of these books to students at a price that they can afford and to be available when they want them. That is my concern under this Bill.

There are other sections of the Bill which I would like to refer, if I may, and that is, the provisions which relate to Government's liability and the Government's privileges under this Bill.

I see, by clause 3 of this Bill, that "this Act shall bind the Government but nothing in this Act should render the Government liable to be prosecuted for an offence." Well, I do not know how Government is going to be bound if it is not liable to be prosecuted for any infringement of copyright. Not very long ago, Mr Speaker, Sir, the public in Singapore and, of course, overseas learned of a Minister of State telling his audience that they should not worry about the Government restricting sale of foreign newspapers in Singapore because one could always make copies of them and circulate them. Sir, if that is not an infringement of copyright, I do not know what is. I wonder what the United States State Department thought of that. So may I know the reason for the provision for the Government not being liable to be prosecuted for any infringement of copyright by the Government?

Then if you move on to clause 6, Mr Speaker, Sir, I see that the Government shall be at perfect liberty "to sell, use or otherwise deal with articles forfeited under any written law, including any article so forfeited by virtue of this Act or of any written law repealed by this Act." That gives the Government carte blanche, as it were, to seize any articles which infringe the copyright of the authors and then to sell or to deal with them in any way the Government thinks fit. It seems to me a complete contradiction of the Government's intention to stamp out infringements of copyright.

Then under clause 7, Mr Speaker, Sir, I see that private educational institutions are excluded. This is because the definition of an "educational institution" under this Bill in which reproduction is permitted without being an infringement "does not include an institution that is conducted for the profit, direct or indirect, of an individual or individuals." This would appear to exclude a number of private organizations in Singapore that do provide education in one form or other. I do not know why the need to exclude them if they are already registered with the Ministry of Education and they are genuine educational institutions.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may turn to clause 187 in the Bill. This provides for copyright in the Government of any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work made by or under the direction or control of a Government department. I see that in the United States, the US Government does not have any copyright. I can understand copyright vesting in the Government where anything is made by any person in the employment of the Government. But we have a situation here where from time to time the Ministry of Information invites people to participate in contests, competitions, essay writing, dramatic competitions. Under this clause the copyright in entries submitted for these competitions would automatically vest with the Government and not with the author of the work. Why should that be? Then the Government is free to make use of that person's work without paying any royalty to that person. As I said, I can understand this if the work is produced by somebody who is under a contract of employment with the Government. But in my view, Mr Speaker, Sir, the copyright in works submitted to the Government by persons who are invited to take part in competitions or festivals organized by the Government should continue to subsist with the author and there should be penalties for infringement of the copyright, either by the Government or by anybody else for that matter.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Copyright Bill and welcome the decision of the Minister to commit it to a Parliamentary Select Committee.

Sir, our present copyright legislation in Singapore is based on the Imperial Copyright Act of 1911 of the United Kingdom. Hence, I believe that there is an urgent need to review this, especially in the light of technological and social changes, both in Singapore and overseas. There are several factors which make it necessary for Singapore to review the present set of laws on copyright.

Firstly, as has been mentioned earlier, there is considerable pressure from the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom on Singapore to introduce tougher legislation to protect intellectual properties in Singapore.

Secondly, Sir, Singapore is now subject to abuse and allegations that it is the centre or, in fact, the world capital for piracy. UK and US firms report losses of millions of dollars because of pirated products like cassette tapes and computer software exported out of Singapore. The Member for Bukit Timah has already read out the various articles. I have copies of a number of articles here from the Financial Times, Straits Times, The Australian and the Canberra Times, all stating that Singapore is the number one piracy centre.

Sir, the third reason is that the US Government even went as far as to caution the danger of Singapore losing out its GSP status if piracy is not checked or strong legislation introduced by the Government.

Amidst the above, I believe that the introduction of a comprehensive copyright bill is indeed very timely. This move would also further go on to protect and promote our overall trade. Sir, it is the declared policy of the Government to promote Singapore as the brain services centre. I believe this piece of legislation will go a long way in correcting our reputation as a centre of piracy. Unchecked piracy, especially in computer software, would destroy Singapore's dream of becoming a leading computer centre by the turn of the century.

Apart from computer software industry, Sir, the printing and publishing industries have also been identified as a growth sector of the economy and it is expected to sustain a growth of about 11% per annum. Again, the introduction of this new Bill would not only benefit local publishers and printers in securing new titles but would also enhance Singapore's position as an international printing and publishing centre.

Sir, one question often asked is whether the introduction of new laws on copyright will result in higher priced products. It would be reasonable to assume that originals will be more expensive than pirated copies. Therefore, it is important that prices of original products should come down and this in a way would discourage piracy further. One way to reduce prices of original products in Singapore would be to encourage Singapore companies to arrange for licensing arrangements with the rights holders to reproduce their products in Singapore for sale in the domestic market as well as for exports to agreed markets at competitive prices. The existing arrangements with major book publishers and printers in the US and the United Kingdom to reprint and publish books in Singapore for domestic sale and export is a good example for other sectors of the economy to follow.

Sir, since this Bill is going to Select Committee, I do not intend to touch on specific provisions except to say that book distributors in Singapore have voiced some reservations as regards clauses 31 and 32 of the new Bill. They claim that this provision is very restrictive and it is not in our interest. Currently, Singapore book distributors enjoy the privilege of securing titles from the UK and the US markets freely, thus keeping prices reasonable and our selection of books wide. Apparently, with the provision in clauses 31 and 32, this practice cannot be continued because of agreements between the UK and US publishers. We can only import from the UK even if the US editions are much cheaper. I believe this is a price we pay for following the Australian model. In fact, some people go on to say that we pirated the Australian model! I hope, Sir, the book distributors will make very strong representations to the Select Committee and that the Minister will give his due consideration.

Sir, with the introduction of this Bill, I believe there will be difficulties in the short run for some people. Adjustments will have to be made and I would appeal to the Minister to look into these short-run problems so as to minimize the difficulties that would be encountered by some sectors in the economy. However, in the long run, this Bill can only do Singapore good.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. As the Minister has stated, such amendments to the law are necessary if we want to develop Singapore's computer software and publishing industries. In view of the fact that this Bill will be referred to Select Committee, I will not speak on the specific provisions. I only wish to make one general point. It is that while I appreciate the need to stamp out large-scale pirating of books, cassettes and computer software, we should not altogether overlook the interests of the bona fide individual who may have legitimate need for making a copy of a book or video tape for his own private or personal use as opposed to commercial purposes. By all means, go after the large-scale pirates. They constitute the real threat and a real problem as I understand it. The making of copies for personal private use ought to be treated differently. There must be a difference between a person making one copy and a person making 10,000 copies for sale.

I see that in clause 108 of the Bill, exception is already made for recording of TV broadcasts for private and domestic use. Can the same principle not be extended to areas mentioned?

Sir, the problem of students has already been mentioned. Here, I note that even today there are editions of books called the Asian Editions which are printed for students, especially those in tertiary institutiions which are sold at about half the price. Perhaps while we tighten our laws, we should also encourage companies to continue such pratices so that these books will still be available to our students.

Sir, I hope the Minister and the Select Committee will consider these points.

Mr Chng Hee Kok (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in general support of this Bill with some reservations. Generally, the Copyright Bill will have repercussions on two main classes of products: (1) leisure and non-essential products, such as audio cassettes and video tapes; (2) educational products such as books and computer software. I think a tighter control of the first category of products on video tapes and audio tapes' pirating is welcome and this will have little impact on the general well-being of our population. Hopefully, the image of our business community will be improved when the copyright law is in force.

However, tough copyright action on educational material is a serious area of concern. The public is apprehensive as there are many school children who are today in possession of unauthorised copies of textbooks or reference books. They are uncertain whether they will be prosecuted if they are found in possession of such material.

The other area of concern is the clauses covering computer software. There is no doubt that cheap and easy availability of computer software has helped the intellectual and educational development of our children in the last five years. Although there are pressures from countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom for us to tighten up copyright in this area, I believe that the situation in these two countries is no different. The distribution of copied computer programmes in these two countries, as I understand it from reading news magazines, is that it is quite a widespread problem. I think the very fact that several software programmes are marketed with elaborate and sophisticated copy protection schemes must lend weight to this fact that it is a serious problem there. In the US, so far only a very small handful of corporations have faced lawsuits and this is only in cases where a company has one legitimate or original copy and they have several other copies in use in the offices. The leakage I think is very substantial in these markets, in the US as well as in the UK. This will remain so as long as computer software is very costly. It is unfortunate that these countries which profess so much concern for our well-being as a friend is at the same time putting so much pressure on us and arm-twisting us with GSP benefits and so on. The situation in the home market is not much better and the leakage in this part of the world is rather small. I think Singapore has been unduly singled out. As pointed out by the Member for Bukit Timah, many countries in this part of the world are perpetrators of much serious pirating.

Revenue loss, as mentioned by the Member for Chong Boon and also the Member for Bukit Timah on computer software pirating, is based on the fact that revenue lost would not have occurred if original software had been sold. But with computer software priced between $1,000 and $1,500, I think it is very doubtful that this is the case. If there is tight control, there will be little or no sale of original software. We must certainly stamp out the selling of pirated computer software. At the same time, we must also discourage companies and organizations from using non-original computer software. However, we should not discourage our people, especially school children, from owning and exchanging computer software for their personal use at home. I think this is an area which will give us much hope and progress and we must continue to allow this development.

Sir, I hope the Select Committee will give this point favourable consideration.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to join the debate. I also welcome this legislation to protect intellectual property in Singapore. It would appear that the Government has only come around after pressure from America. The last time we heard of pirates in Singapore was in the time of Sir Stamford Raffles. And now, according to what Members have said, it would appear that people all over the world say that there are still pirates in Singapore.

I note that this Bill is going to be sent to Select Committee and I think it is a good thing because there are a lot of repercus- sions. If you go to any shopping centre in the suburbs, you will see shops busy with their photostat machines, and also cassette tapes, video tapes, lined up. I think the Government at this stage should look carefully whether they should implement this quickly. If they are going to do that, I think then many of these people would suffer. Wide publicity should be given to this Bill and to tell them to wind up their business quickly. The law is very comprehensive and it covers all kinds of intellectual property.

With the passing of this law, of course, we will be thrown into the big league of nations. I am sure that when this law comes into force there will be bilateral legislation with countries like America, England and other Western countries. In other words, we are competing with them in respect of this kind of business. To me this is a one-sided competition. In countries like America and England, they have complete intellectual freedom. University lecturers, writers, script writers for motion pictures, journalists, can write freely, anything they want, except of course within the constraints of defamatory law and matters concerning internal and national security.

But can we do that in Singapore? We have read not long ago of a group of young University lecturers who have taken the trouble to publish in magazines about certain things which, of course, are not pleasant but true. They have been called up by the Ministry of Culture and told, "Please don't publish any more seamy things about Singapore." If you want to be creative and innovative, intellectual freedom must be allowed in all areas. You cannot just say, "All right. Confine it to writing of software;" it being very productive there, and in other areas you say, "Please don't write too much, especially about politics."

Not long ago, I had the opportunity, together with the Member for Anson, to have breakfast with a Mrs Graham. As you may know, she is the owner of the Washington Post, owner of Newsweek and many broadcasting companies in America. She said that she had lunch with a group of our young reporters and she found our young reporters to be intelligent, lively and very good, even better than some of the reporters in America. But are our journalists producing books or publications about Singapore? They have been in the business for so long and yet we hardly see any books about Singapore. I think we cannot confine intellectual work just to one area and not allow it in another area. Our people must be given the intellectual freedom to report things objectively. Look at our newspaper reports. Unfortunately the number of our newspapers has been reduced. But look at their reports. Are they really objective? Are they truly exercising their journalistic skills freely? I do not think so. Once we have this copyright law, I think it is also important for us really not to lose out to the other countries. We must have this intellectual freedom. Not long ago, in China they had this policy of "let a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend." I have said that previously and I would like to repeat. I think we should have that policy in Singapore also.

It is not easy to have a publication in Singapore. All the editors and all the people in charge would have to declare how much they earn, what is their disposable income. It is very intimidating. Who would like to start a publication when they have to give all the details of how much they own and how much they earn. Of course, every publication in Singapore will have to be screened, formerly by the Ministry of Culture and now I suppose it is the Ministry of Community Development, or whatever Ministry that has taken over now. I hear that even a school magazine has to be screened.

An hon. Member: Not true.

Mr Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Your Demokrat is being published. Don't tell lies.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am talking about the intimidating effect of all these measures. So if we want to have this law, which is good, we must give Singapore the conditions whereby people can really be creative and really be not afraid to use their intellectual capacities to the fullest. Look at the newspaper reports of what the Opposition has said. They are always given two or three inches per column. Against that, take the example of the last May Day Rally. It was highlighted in the front page. The crowd of 20,000 was said to be 40,000. And there was a photograph in the front page showing all the umbrellas opened out. But I noted the umbrellas. If you go back and look at the paper again, the umbrellas were all the same. So they have been provided for, and it should have been fairly reported that every one of them was given an umbrella. I would have gone if I knew I was going to be given an umbrella! It is a form of bribery. Whereas the report on our rally was short and it said it was sparsely attended. But it failed to say that it was pouring with rain on that day. But we did not provide free umbrellas. That is probably the reason.

This is not the politics of envy. The point I am trying to make is that our journalists in Singapore are not given the free intellectual rein to write objectively. If this is true of our journalists, this must be true of other people who wish to write freely. Without this kind of a condition, if we have this law, I think we will be on the losing end and Singapore will definitely fall out. We have to pay more for the original works. We have to spend more money. Our standard of living will probably drop because we have to spend more money. I mean, the figures have been quoted. It comes to millions of dollars; it is not just by thousands of dollars. So my plea to the Government is that if they want to have this copyright law implemented, well and good. We support it. But at the same time there must be more intellectual freedom. That is my point.

Of course, I would not like to go into the details of the copyright law. It is going to Select Committee. I think I have the sentiment of Members who have spoken out here in respect of textbooks. I know many school children not only photostat part of their textbooks but, in fact, the whole textbook and manual. I think the Government should take steps to make sure that there is a provision for cheaper textbooks for our school children.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (Kaki Bukit): Sir, like the other Members of the House, I rise in support of the Bill. What surprised me is that today we have the two Opposition Members supporting the Bill, in general. I am glad that they rose in support of the Bill.

Just a point of clarification before I proceed further. I think it is not true, as what the Member for Potong Pasir has said, that all those who turned up at the rally on May Day were given umbrellas. Umbrellas were offered to supporters by some of the unions. I think it is an insult to Singaporeans to say that they need an umbrella as an incentive for them to turn up at the rally.

Sir, I agree with the other Members in the House that the new copyright legislation is necessary in the long term interest of Singapore if we are to develop ourselves as an international brain services centre and a publishing centre and, most important of all, if we are to encourage creativity among Singaporeans. I have, however, three points of clarification to seek from the Minister. One area of concern, as already expressed by the Member for Chong Boon, is that the consumers are wary that copyright owners may take undue advantage of the new law to profiteer. Besides the suggestion raised by the Member for Chong Boon, may I propose that the Minister considers setting up a body to regulate prices of copyright materials. Perhaps the Ministry of Trade and Industry Anti Profiteering Committee could take on this role.

Another area of concern, as most commonly expressed by most local businessmen, is that the new law will put them out of business. By and large, I think the law is in the long term interest of Singapore but there is a need for the Government to allow some short term period for these businessmen to adjust. May I therefore propose that the Minister considers, after legislation is passed, granting a grace period of six months to a year for these businessmen to adjust. This is necessary because, in this period of recession, businessmen find it even more difficult to raise capital to invest in new activities.

Finally, an area which I think is of importance is the need for communication. This copyright legislation will have a large impact on a large cross section of our society, from school children to businessmen. May I propose that the Minister consider launching a comprehensive educational programme through the mass media and the various grassroots organizations to explain the various aspects of the copyright legislation and its implications so as to clear any confusion and to allay the fears of the public before legislation is passed.

Prof. S. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have taken note of the various points and suggestions made by hon. Members. I thank them for their expressions of support and I give them the assurance that their views will be carefully examined by Government as well as by the Select Committee. In view of the fact that the Bill will be referred to Select Committee, hon. Members will understand if I do not deal with each and every one of their points so as not to pre-empt consideration and decision on their points by the Select Committee. I will refer to a few points brought up by some Members.

The hon. Member for Bukit Timah asked whether the 30-day period is too short for international film manufacturers from publishing it here. This point actually will have to be taken care of by bilateral agreements or by accession to the international copyright conventions.

He has referred to clause 199 and asked whether it meant that no action can be brought against infringement of copyrights which took place prior to the commencement of the operation of the Act. The answer to that is that infringement of copyright which occurred prior to the commencement of the operation of the Act can still be proceeded with by action. But the penalties and the other provisions will be governed by the existing law and not by the new provisions of the proposed Bill. He has referred to what he calls the computer network. He is obviously very well versed with computers and I would suggest that he kindly elaborate this point either in writing or in oral representation to the Select Committee.

The Member for Anson expressed concern for textbooks for students, a point also made by other Members. In this regard, I would like to refer to the answer which was, in fact, given by the Member for Chong Boon - that licensing and other contractual arrangements can be made. But equally and more important, I would like to point out that there are specific provisions in the Bill for educational institutions and I would like particularly to refer to clause 52 onwards.

As to the comment about the provisions dealing with Government subject to confirmation which I have to make with the draftsmen, my understanding is that these are, in fact, identical to the provisions to be found in the legislation of other countries, such as Malaysia and Australia. But, as I said, this is subject to confirmation.

The point was also made by the Member for Anson that private educational institutions seem to be excluded from the benefit of the provisions pertaining to educational institutions. Where such educational institutions are organized solely for profit, I think the reason may be quite obvious because where educational institutions are run for profit the persons running the institution logically ought to bear the burden of infringement of copyright.

The Member for Chong Boon referred to clauses 31 and 32 and the concern and grievances of a particular group of book distributors. I assure him that this is being looked into as of now and it is a matter which will also be looked into by the Select Committee.

The points made by the Member for Fengshan have some validity and the details of his proposal as to whether the exceptions made for consumers who make copies solely for personal or private use can be extended to areas other than that of recording or film or television broadcast will be looked into by the Select Committee.

An important point was raised by the Member for Radin Mas when he said that several persons, including school children, are very concerned and apprehensive that their possession of materials - photo- copied or duplicated materials - might render themselves subject to prosecution. On this point, I think it is important for me to emphasize and to assure the Member that, under the proposed provisions of the law, possession will not be an offence. That is an important point which I think needs to be emphasized if, as indicated by the Member for Radin Mas, there is some confusion on this. Possession will not render one to criminal prosecution.

The Member for Potong Pasir supported the Bill but everything else that he spoke had nothing to do with the Bill. His points were completely irrelevant. He talked about intellectual freedom and so on. I do not intend to deal with the breakfast or dinners that he had with various persons. But one important point which I want to make by way of rebuttal is that, and I quote his exact words, "Every publication in Singapore will have to be screened." These are his exact words - "every publication". I would like to ask him under which law, either in this Copyright Bill or under which other provision, is any publication, including his journal of the Singapore Democratic Party, required to be submitted for the contents to be screened? I will save him the embarrassment of having to rise up and admit his ignorance because there is no law requiring him or anybody else who wants to publish a book or any other publication to submit the contents of the publication to any Government agency for prior censorship. He knows it. The publication of his Party - I forget the name and how often it appears - has carried all sorts of criticisms of the Government. Has he or his Party or the editors ever been asked to submit the contents of any forthcoming issue for publication for censorship or for approval or disapproval?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I just clarify this point? Is it not true that publications like plays and books have to be submitted for vetting by the Ministry of Culture?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, this shows his ignorance. What he said was - these are his words - "Every publication will have to be screened." There is, and any lawyer or layman would know, a very big difference between publication of a work and a performance in public before an audience of a play or a drama.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Or a book.

Prof. Jayakumar: Or of a book. I do not know how you perform a book! Would the Member for Potong Pasir admit -

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, is it not true that plays and books have to be vetted by the Ministry of Culture?

Prof. Jayakumar: Can I ask him whether he insists that every publication has to be screened in Singapore, including -

Mr Chiam See Tong: Books and plays.

Prof. Jayakumar: Can he tell me one instance where his Party or any other person had to submit a manuscript of a book before the book was printed?

Mr Chiam See Tong: What is meant is publication of plays and books. Is it not true that these have to be sent for vetting by the Ministry of Culture?

Prof. Jayakumar: He made a statement. I am telling him now that it is totally untrue. I am asking him for his authority for the proposition that, under the laws of Singapore, any play or book has to be sent for prior censorship.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Isn't that true?

Prof. Jayakumar: Do not ask me whether it is true. He made the statement. I am asking for his authority. Does he know of any instance or does he know of any provision in any law which requires a person who is about to publish a play from getting approval and submitting its contents? I am waiting for the answer, Sir.

Mr Chiam See Tong: As far as I know, these matters, like books and plays, will have to be submitted for vetting before they can be publicly shown.

Prof. Jayakumar: Publication?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, publicly shown. Anyone who writes a play and he wants to show it in public -

An hon. Member: Perform it.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Perform it in public, that play, the script. Are you saying that they can just do it and go and perform it in public? If you say that, then we will do it. Is that not the correct position in Singapore today, that nobody can just write a play and perform it?

Prof. Jayakumar: There are very few instances where the author of a play performs the play himself. I have asked on numerous instances for the Member for Potong Pasir to cite me actual examples or, if he cannot cite examples, the provision of any law or regulation which requires the author of a play, of a book, of a drama, of a novel, of a newspaper, or a periodical, to submit the contents prior to publication to a Government agency for approval. The answer is: there is no such legal requirement. The only legal requirement that exists is with regard to public performance of plays which may require licensing under the relevant rules of the Public Entertainments Act. So the Member for Potong Pasir not only does not say anything about the Copyright Bill but even his irrelevancies are totally wrong.

Mr Chiam See Tong rose -

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, may I finish?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Prof. Jayakumar: He spoke about the May Day Rally. I am glad the Member for Kaki Bukit has answered him effectively. I was there, and I can testify that many of the persons who were there went there with infants in arms, little children who had to be carried. That speaks much more than the Member for Potong Pasir who admitted publicly that the only instance when he would have gone was if he was assured of an umbrella! So much for workers' solidarity!

The Member for Kaki Bukit finally spoke about some of the points raised by other Members. His point about the need for communication and publicity programme is a valid one and one which we will give careful attention. As it is, some publicity has already been generated. But I take his point that as it is a Bill which affects so many persons, we should ensure that the maximum dissemination of the salient features of the Bill should be made public.

Sir, as I said, I do not wish to go into the details of the points raised. Suffice it for me to say that copyright legislation is a very difficult legislation because it has to reconcile competing and conflicting interests - the interests of the author, the interests of the owner of the copyright, the interests of the consumer, the interests of the educational institutions, and so on. It has taken some time to draft this Bill but the time was necessary to ensure that the reconciliation was as desirable as possible.

In the nature of copyright legislation, none of the interested groups can insist on having the cake and to eat it as well. There has to be compromise and adjustments and this is what our new law does. It gives protection to the author or owner of the copyright but at the same time provisions have been made for fair dealings, for the issue of statutory licences, for the issue of compulsory licensing arrangement, special provisions exist to cater to the needs of libraries, educational institutions and so on. There are, it is true, provisions for infringement of copyright but it is also provided that not every infringement would attract criminal prosecution. The law, in other words, Sir, attempts to be fair to all parties, is practical, and I think it would serve our country's national interest.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Resolved,

That the Copyright Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar].