NEWSPAPER AND PRINTING PRESSES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 3.34 pm

The Minister of State for Communications and Information (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the purpose of this Bill is to restrict the sale or distribution of foreign publications which have been declared as having engaged in the domestic politics of Singapore.

Newspapers and news magazines are an influential tool for shaping public opinion. Public opinion is shaped not only by the way the editors and journalists comment on current issues but also by the very selection of headlines, pictures and features and the manner of their presentation. Because of the potent influence it can wield, the press must ensure that it exercises its influence in a responsible manner. A responsible press is crucial to nation building.

Our local newspapers know that Singapore's multi-racial and multi-religious society is small and vulnerable. They are extremely careful about not causing any offence to any racial, religious or linguistic group. They need to have a keen sense of our security and economic circumstances in the Southeast Asian and global context. They know what would undermine Singapore's prosperity and long-term survival. Their ownership, management and editorial control therefore have to be in the hands of Singaporeans. This must be the case because those who have made this country their home will better appreciate the responsibility they have to exercise. Foreigners, whose roots are not in Singapore, must not be allowed to control the local media. The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) passed in Parliament on 27th March 1974 is meant to ensure this. So far, this Act has served its purpose well.

When the NPPA was enacted, it was not made applicable to foreign newspapers and news magazines whose ownership, management and editorial control are outside the jurisdiction of Singapore. There were few foreign publications in circulation in Singapore at that time. Now, the number of foreign publications available in Singapore has increased to 3,700. Some foreign newspapers and news magazines - eg. the Asian Wall Street Journal, International Herald Tribune, USA Today, Time and Economist - are printed in Singapore now. But they are still deemed to be foreign publications under this amendment Bill because their ownership, management and editorial control are outside Singapore.

Also, 12 years ago, foreign newspapers and news magazines, especially those which commented on Singapore issues, did not have a significant circulation here. Since 1974, the sales in Singapore of foreign publications have increased. The total circulation of some of the major dailies and weeklies like the Asiaweek, Far Eastern Economic Review, International Herald Tribune, Time, Asian Wall Street Journal and Newsweek, is about 59,000.

For some of them, for example, the Asian Wall Street Journal, Far Eastern Economic Review and Asiaweek, their circulation in Singapore constitutes quite a large percentage of their total sales. Almost one in seven copies of these publications I have just mentioned is sold in Singapore. They are therefore dependent to a great extent on the Singapore market. They are almost like a local newspaper. There is therefore a strong profit motive for them to try to use issues to increase their circulation.

The vast majority of the 3,700 foreign publications report on Singapore fairly and objectively if and when they do so. They do not indulge in campaigns to influence Singaporean opinion.

But there has been a tendency on the part of a few foreign publications, a very small minority, which try to stir up Singa- porean feelings on local issues, even on sensitive issues like race and religion. I am not talking about these publications writing one or two unbalanced reports. They may have published these reports based on some incomplete information from which mistaken beliefs and conclusions were formed. We would overlook this if the mistake was genuine. But if the foreign publications resort to a pattern of reporting which seeks to distort the truth on local issues and to arouse the feelings of our people, then it is a different matter.

When such foreign publications keep on publishing for a period of time, reports on local issues which are slanted, distorted or partisan, or when they try to influence our people on matters which they have no business to be involved in, or when they cast aspersions on our established institutions, then they are engaging in campaigns to influence local public opinion. They are considered to have stepped out of the bound of professional journalism into the realm of local politics. They will be considered as engaging in our domestic politics.

Let me elaborate on what I mean. If over a period of time, a foreign publication carries a series of articles and letters on race and religion and attempts to influence people's opinion that a particular race has been discriminated against; two, when in its reporting of our key institutions, eg. our courts, it tries to cast doubts in the minds of our people that our courts are not independent and it maligns the integrity of our judiciary; and three, it imposes its own ideas of press freedom without the understanding of the nature of our society: all these constitute interference in our domestic politics.

What I have given are just some examples. It is not necessary or practical for me to list all the situations under which a foreign publication is considered as having transgressed because the nature of topical and controversial issues will vary from time to time. We cannot allow our domestic political process to be influenced or guided by some foreign publications which have no stake in Singapore. If the foreign publications do these things, then they are meddling in our domestic politics.

Some people said that this amendment is unnecessary. They said that the way to deal with these foreign publications which meddle with our domestic politics is to use the existing laws - like the Undesirable Publications Act, the Sedition Act, the Internal Security Act and the Penal Code. Let there be no delusion that the Government will hesitate to use the appropriate laws to deal with foreign publications when the situation demands. For example, late last year, the Asian Wall Street Journal and its editors were cited for contempt of our courts and were found guilty.

But there is a Chinese saying:( ) sha ji he bi yong niu dao which means "there is no need to use a cow's knife to kill a chicken." The English version is: "There is no need to use a sledgehammer to kill a fly." Therefore, while there are existing laws which can deal with the problem of foreign press interference in Singapore's politics, they may not be the most appropriate tool.

Let me give an example. If the Undesirable Publications Act were invoked and the foreign publication banned, then Singaporeans will not have the opportunity to read what is written about us. There will be no free flow of ideas which we all agree is necessary to develop Singapore into an international information centre. The advocates of the use of the Undesirable Publications Act have contradicted themselves when they urged the Government to ban the publications which meddle in our domestic politics and yet at the same time agreed with the Government that there should be free flow of ideas.

Sir, what is at issue here is not freedom of information or free flow of ideas. There is no intention to curb the flow of information or ideas by banning the publications. A ban will be misrepresented by such publications and opportunists as fear of exposing our people to their reporting. We have no such fears. There is no intention whatsoever to deprive Singaporeans' access to information and views in foreign publications.

We know that it is not possible to seal Singapore off completely from external influences in this age of the computer and satellite technology. Singapore is a very open society. Singaporeans are affluent enough and they travel and read widely. They are free to read even foreign publications gazetted under the proposed amendments for we believe too that they are discerning enough. In fact, exposure to such foreign publications will enable Singaporeans to see for themselves the motive behind the reporting which seeks to manipulate them on local politics. It will be educational and will contribute to a more resilient nation through a better understanding of the ways of the world.

So the issue is not freedom of information or free flow of ideas. Let us not be befuddled or fooled by proponents of this view. The issue before us is: how do we stop such publications from profiting financially by consistently attempting to manipulate local opinion and interfering in our domestic politics under the guise of freedom of the press. The Bill is the answer.

Advocates of freedom of the press feel that the press, especially the foreign press, should be completely free to do and say as they please. But we all know that to secure freedom there is a price, there is a cost to be paid. Our freedom to walk on our streets without harrassment of criminals, for example, is paid for by the money we spent in maintaining law and order. Our freedom to breathe clean air, for example, is paid for by the money we spent to prevent environmental pollution.

If absolute freedom is exercised by the foreign press in Singapore and if they are allowed to interfere with our domestic political process, manipulate local opinion by slanted and divisive reporting, then the price we pay will be chaos and confusion and this will lead to instability and strife. No investor will then want to put his money in Singapore.

Some people also said that the effect of this Bill is minimal because profits of the publications come more from advertisements than from circulation. I think only the naive or those bent on misleading the people will put up such an argument. The Bill will have an effect precisely because a reduction in circulation will affect advertising revenue and hence profits. That is why foreign publications are worried. If this were not the case, then they would have no cause for alarm.

Singapore welcomes the foreign press to operate here. Our environment, in fact, is so congenial that there are 82 foreign correspondents and representatives working and living in Singapore. They represent 65 news agencies, news magazines, newspapers and broadcasting stations. They are free to report on Singapore. But we expect them to report events, government decisions and policies objectively and accurately and not to resort to distortions just because they do not agree with us.

Sir, let me now touch on the main features of this Bill. Under section 18A(1), the Minister will be empowered, by order published in the Gazette, to declare a foreign publication as engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore. The Minister will exercise this power reasonably and in good faith and on proper grounds. The declaration of a foreign publication is not a matter to be entered into lightly. There need not be any fear that the Minister is given such a discretion to act.

The sale or distribution in Singapore of a foreign publication so declared will be restricted to a specified number of copies under section 18A(4). A person found with more than five unauthorized copies will be deemed to have possessed them for sale or distribution under section 18A(6). Reproduction for sale or distribution will be an offence under section 18B. Copies that are allowed in can be freely circulated or passed around.

Sections 18C and D deal with persons or parcels that come into Singapore. The sections allow the appropriate authorities to search, detain and dispose of declared publications found in the person or parcel. To ensure that the restriction in number of copies is effective, subscription to foreign publications, except through an authorized dealer, is prohibited under section 18E.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It looks from the response from the Government benches that there is going to be no opposition to this Bill. Everybody will put their hands on their hearts and swear "Aye".

An hon. Member: What is wrong with that?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, there is nothing wrong. We must all say, "Baa, baa, black sheep."

Mr Speaker: Can you carry on, Mr Jeyaretnam?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, why must this Government, I ask, ridicule and humiliate our citizens? Why must this Government hold up our citizens to the rest of the world as a people who are immature, as a people who are unable to make up their own minds, as a people who are unable to form any independent judgment but must be guided by the Government in every opinion that they hold, and must be controlled in their reading? That is to ridicule and to humiliate our citizens. And this Bill tries to achieve precisely that.

We are already, Mr Speaker, Sir, held up to ridicule and contempt by a number of other countries in the things that our society has been forced to accept. The controlled trade unions where there is no independence of the trade union movement, where the Chief Executive Officer of the trade union movement is also a member of the Cabinet and, as the Prime Minister has openly admitted, whose only duty, task, is to see that he carries the trade unions with the Government. That cannot but hold up the workers in Singapore to ridicule and contempt. That they can put up with such state of affairs where they cannot elect their own leaders but that the Government must elect their Chief Executive and that the Government must direct what they do in the matter of their trade union activities.

There is, of course, the other institution which is a scandal, and that is the press, our local press. Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall be dealing with the local press when I try to reply to the Minister on his statement about the responsible press, that is, I think, in his words were "crucial to a society" (I may not have his exact words). So I ask again, why does this Government do this? However the Minister may try to make it out, this Bill does not really try to penalize or to hurt the pockets of those who run the foreign press, foreign newspapers, so much as to inflict this ridicule on our citizens.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the PAP Government before the last general elections was holding up to our people the concept of a City of Elite, City of Excellence, City of Information (hi-tech information) where everyone will be allowed access to information, where everyone will get the information when he needs it. And, of course, the society of the future is vitally dependent on getting information, correct information, and to be able to, as it were, sift the various pieces of information that come to it, and to be able to make judgment and separate the wheat from the chaff. Having proclaimed this gospel of free information available for our citizens and flowing, what does the Government do in practice? In practice, information is shut out from all our citizens, information that is important and necessary for them to know if they are to actively participate in running the affairs of this country.

Let us take just the example of the question that I tried to ask about the arms that are supplied to other countries. The Singapore Government thinks our citizens should not be told. But other countries know about it. That is the sort of thing we have got to put up with. We cannot get the information from the Government which other countries seem to be able to know and to put out concerning Singapore. I mentioned - was it yesterday or the day before - about writing to the Registrar of the Subordinate Courts for some information. I had to point out to them that it was a matter of public record. The Registrar concedes, "Well, you say it is a matter of public record. We agree but we are not going to give you that information now." Then we have the Official Secrets Act, now extended to statutory boards, which prevents information, even of the most innocuous kind, nothing to do with sensitive material, coming to the knowledge of our citizens. I could go on and on. The intention of the Government, whilst it talks about opening our citizens' minds to knowledge and information, would appear to be just the reverse. It is to close the minds of our citizens. It is to lock them up with the knowledge or with the information that is only provided by the Government and its own media.

The Minister spoke about a responsible press. Of course, I am the first to say that the press must be a responsible press. Is the Minister seriously holding up the Government press here in Singapore as a responsible press? Is he seriously asserting that the Straits Times, the Zaobao, Wanbao, the Shin Min, the Berita Harian, are all responsible press in Singapore?

Some hon. Members: Yes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is his criteria of a responsible press? Perhaps he could spell that out. What is the criteria of a responsible press? Is a press responsible when it churns out day after day Government propaganda, fills its pages with speeches ad nauseam from Ministers and who have you? Not a day passes, if you look at the front page of the Straits Times, without it saying, "The Minister said this ..." and they carry their own report on it. And then you find, as though that is not enough, "full text of the Minister's speech, page 6." Then you turn to page 6 and you find the whole page taken up. Is it because they have nothing else to write about? Then you have the reporting of Government functions. Ministers going there, MPs taking a stroll through their constituencies, walking up that alleyway, this alleyway, and so the press reports it. That is a very responsible press because it brings the Government to the people. It shows up the Government in beautiful light, "Look at our Ministers. They can make wonderful speeches. Look at our Government MPs. They are walking up and down the roads everyday looking after our citizens."

What about the duty that the press owes to the people of Singapore? Does the press owe no duty to the people of Singapore? There is no investigative journalism in Singapore. There is no comprehension in Singapore if you read Singapore's papers of the ability to grasp the essentials. All we get is platitudes, generalities and the like on any report.

Let me give you an example. The Sunday Times, not the Sunday just gone past but the Sunday the week before that, carried an editorial. The Saturday before that, the papers were full of the Report of the Commission. And on Sunday, the Sunday Times carries an editorial and it says, concerning me, "What must be done must be done." And if one looked at that editorial, one could have guessed perhaps or thought that it might have been written by a Government Minister or by a Government Member. There was no attempt made to try and intelligently study the Report and to see whether the conclusions were well founded or whether there was any cause for criticism. No, it was a sheepish acceptance. Because the Government says this, we say "Aye".

Mr Speaker, Sir, in other countries, if a commission were to present a report, there would be a critical study of the report, not just the editorial but they would invite articles and there would be a critical study of the report. And it would be taken paragraph by paragraph or conclusion by conclusion, so that it may be explained to the people and to see whether the report could stand up. That is the sort of thing we do not get in Singapore. The people in Singapore are just fed with just one view, one opinion, and they are not allowed to have any other view or opinion. If that is what the Minister says is a responsible press, then I am afraid I must disagree.

So is the Minister proud of his press here? I for one, may I say, I am ashamed of the press that we have in Singapore. Not so long ago, I think the President of the Law Society said he did not read the Straits Times except maybe the sports or some feature of it. So if you want creative minds - and we are all striving for creativity, are we not - then you have got to feed the mind, not with just one pipeline of information. You have got to feed it with other information, going in to help the mind to critically analyze and make a valid judgment. How is he going to do it if he is only supplied with just one pipeline of information coming through the Government media, day in and day out? And not just the press, we have got the television. We have got the Government-controlled radio. As the Member for Potong Pasir said yesterday, not content with showing the proceedings in the Commission of Inquiry once, they had to have a re-run,twice, three times.

What is the Government afraid of? Because that is what it suggests - that the Government is mortally afraid that our citizens may be able to form their own judgments, may be able to make their own valid assessments. Is that what the Government is afraid of? Why is this Government so paranoid, that it is frightened of its people? I cannot find any other explanation than that for this policy of the Government. It is not as though we are in the midst of a war. Let us get rid of this siege mentality. Some lecturer way back wrote about Singapore's siege mentality. It would appear that we are still besieged by this siege mentality. Let us relax. Let us enjoy life and you will enjoy if you have information available, if the citizens are able to read whatever they wish to read, within certain limits, of course, which the ordinary law will take care of. And they are able to see what they wish to see.

Take the stupid case of trying to make it difficult for Singaporeans to watch any programmes over TV 3 from Malaysia, the HDB refusing to modify the antenna. It is a stupid thing. The only thing it did was to annoy a lot of our elderly senior citizens. Because I was told that they could get sometimes the Cantonese programmes or Hokkien programmes on that channel. There you are. You have it. It is not the information. You are even denying enjoyment to a section of our community.

Why is all this necessary in today's society in Singapore? Are we or are we not a free society? The Government pays lip-service to this concept of a free society, some free society we have in Singapore, where everything is controlled, every thought would appear to be controlled. The Prime Minister, speaking sometime ago, talked about the brain drain. Why do you think people are leaving Singapore? Not everyone, Members of the House, leave for greener pastures. It is not the lure of money that takes them abroad. Because they find Singapore stifling. They find the atmosphere in Singapore unbearable. Let me tell you, Members. Only last night I met somebody and he said, "We are migrating." I said. "Don't be silly. Why are you migrating?"

An hon. Member: Another story.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I said, "You should stay here." They said, "No, we can't see any future for us in this place." I said, "Don't be silly. You stay." But they said they were making their plans to leave. And it is not just them. The people who leave here are not just the ordinary workers. They cannot leave. The people who leave are those who have some sort of skill, training, who are able to use their skills outside. So that is robbing this country of the talent that we could have. If only we could try and understand why they are leaving this place. I am not trying to spin a yarn.

As I said, the Prime Minister was worried about the brain drain. I do not think anyone will deny that there is a brain drain. I know other countries also have this problem. But we need it so vitally, because again, Members, we are reminded, times without number, that our only resources are our people. We cannot dig up something from under the ground to sell to foreigners. We cannot tap the rubber from our trees to sell them. All we can sell is here [pointing to the brain] in our citizens, their ideas, their technology that they can invent. And people will buy them. But we are trying to kill that. Can you not see it? We are trying to kill the only resources that this country possesses. And we are trying to kill it by refusing to let our citizens widen their knowledge by reading material elsewhere than just in the Straits Times and the Chinese, Malay papers that the Government puts out. If they are to be left with just these papers, I am afraid you will find that the supply of this brain power will diminish as time goes on. It must because it will get warped by just one information from one pipeline being fed into it all the time, and they would not be able to think for themselves.

There is another thing that I have noticed and which is disturbing for the society. I come across from time to time officials of the Government being so frightened of exercising any discretion. They say, "Mr Jeyaretnam, those are the rules we must follow." I say, "Look, they are the rules, I know. I am not asking you. But there are some cases you must be able to exercise your discretion." They say, "No, I must refer it to my superior." And so it goes right up, I suppose, to the Permanent Secretary. Can you see what a waste it is? And all this because we are fettering our people. We are tying them up in the one aspect where we need their contribution, and that is here [pointing to the brain]. And unless we can release that, unlock it for them, we are not going to reach the City of Excellence. We are not going to have a society with a free flow of information, hi-tech information that the PAP talked about before the 1984 elections. By no way are we going to get that. All we will have are people who know only what the PAP press put out.

Yesterday, listening to the Member for Whampoa, he was talking what I thought the PAP were talking some years ago and I do not see very much of it now - that if you are anti-PAP then you are anti-Singaporean. That is a lot of nonsense. That is the biggest nonsense that I have ever heard.

Prof. Jayakumar: Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: What is your point of order?

Prof. Jayakumar: The Member is quoting incorrectly what the Member for Whampoa said.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right. Then if I am quoting him incorrectly, I am sorry. But I thought that is what he was trying to say.

Loyalty to Singapore cannot be equated to loyalty to the Government or loyalty to a single party. The country is bigger than that. The country is bigger than the Government. The people are bigger than the Government, bigger than the party. And so, what we have got to try and decide is, whose interests matter, whose future are we trying to serve? The people? Or the PAP? Or the Government? Are we to try and direct all our efforts and energy to keeping the PAP in power? Is that what the Government aims at, regardless of what the people want? Is that the motive? Because that is what you are trying to do by this Bill. You are saying, "We do not want you to read anything that may be critical of the Government." I know, Members are shaking their heads and saying, "No, no, that is not what we are trying to do." But that is what you are doing. That is how the public sees it. You are shutting out information from them.

The Minister said, I think in a speech, that the Bill had nothing to do with the criticism that had come from the foreign press on the economic recession. There was quite a lot of criticism and there was indeed very strong criticism about the closing down of that Stock Exchange for three days. As I have said, was it the Financial Times which said, it indicated a lack of confidence and competence on the part of the administrators. Is that what has hurt the Government? But we do not need the Financial Times of London to say that. Our people themselves knew that. So is that why we want to pass this Bill, so that our citizens may not read the criticisms that may be made overseas about anything that happens in Singapore? Members of the House, the world is getting smaller and smaller. You cannot try and isolate or insulate one place from the rest of the world. In this age of satellite information, anything happening in one part of the world is immediately transmitted to the other part of the world, and people can see it.

An hon. Member: Precisely.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I know somebody says, "Precisely". The question is, are we going to shut out criticisms, judgments, value assessments, apart from just seeing an item of news? We cannot, as it were, try and live alone from the rest of the world. The Minister seems to have conceded that - we cannot insulate ourselves. But this is what you are trying to do, trying to insulate Singaporeans from the rest of the world, and that adds to their frustration. They are annoyed. They go abroad and they read and when they come back they cannot get the same thing to read here. Why do we have to do this to our people? Are you frightened of our people, I ask? Are you frightened that they might make a judgment which might unseat you? Is that what you are frightened of? I was referring to this speech made by the Minister on the 22nd January at some function, I think it was a dinner, and it was reported, probably the whole text was given, in the Straits Times on the 22nd January. My Party issued a press release on this on the 25th January. 4.30 pm

Mr Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption. Debate to be resumed what day?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Tomorrow, Sir.

Mr Speaker: So be it.