NEWSPAPER AND PRINTING PRESSES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [31st July, 1986],

"That the Bill be now read a Second time." - [Acting Minister for Community Development and Minister of State, Ministry of Communications and Information].

Question again proposed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, would you be good enough to tell me how much more time I have?

Mr Speaker: You have 10 more minutes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Only 10 more minutes.

Mr Speaker: Goodness me, you used 50 minutes yesterday.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, Sir, if it displeases you that I spoke for 50 minutes. But I need to speak on this. If I have 10 minutes, I must go quite fast on this.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was referring yesterday, to the speech made by the Minister at this function and I said he had made a press release and at that speech the Minister said that the decision had been taken after a very careful analysis of foreign press reporting on Singapore over many years. We made a press release asking whether the Minister had this very careful analysis and would he present it to Parliament when the Bill was debated. The Minister spoke for about 20 minutes yesterday and he has not presented this very careful analysis of foreign press reporting on Singapore over many years. Will he tell us whether such a very careful analysis does exist? And if it does exist, will he table it now before he sits down, after he speaks? Because we cannot have Ministers making statements outside and in this House which amount to misleading. We had the Minister for Home Affairs misleading the House when he read the Bill on the amendment to the Adoption Act. It was a complete misleading of the House. I know the House rejected my motion on it. But anyone could see that he misled the House completely. So was the Minister misleading his audience when he said the Government had made a very careful analysis over many years? If he was not I am saying, "Will you produce it now?" I am calling for it. And if you cannot produce it, it must mean that you do not have it and that you were lying.

Mr Speaker: I am not lying.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That he was lying to the audience.

Mr Speaker: You are referring to me all the time.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sorry. It is the Minister.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. He says I was lying. Can he prove it?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I said if you cannot produce, it must mean that. So would he produce it, please?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: That is illogical.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That is one point. The second point is this. I was talking about cutting off information from our own citizens and about releasing their minds and not locking them up. May I ask a question and may we have an answer to this? Would the Minister tell us whether the Prime Minister of Singapore contents himself for his daily information only on the Straits Times and the local press? May we have the information? Does he just read that, or does he also read the Inter- national Herald Tribune and the Asian Wall Street Journal? I should be very surprised to hear that he only contents himself with the Straits Times and the Chinese press. If the Prime Minister should have this for his education, his enlightenment, why should the citizens be denied it?

On domestic politics, the Minister was delightfully vague when he touched on domestic politics. May I ask specific questions of the Minister? And will he reply to these specific questions when he replies at the end of the debate on this Bill? Is it domestic politics or is it interference with domestic politics if a foreign journal were to criticize the lack of caring in Singapore for the unfortunate midst in our community? Is that interference in domestic politics?

Second question. I hope the Minister is taking note. Is it interference in domestic politics if the foreign newspaper should say that the society in Singapore is being engineered, that there is engineering going on at the behest of the Prime Minister and the Government, that people are being made to fit into moulds prepared by the Prime Minister? Is that interference in domestic politics?

Third, is it interference in domestic politics if they should say that the Secretary-General of the trade union movement is a Minister of the Cabinet and then go on to criticize it and to say that there cannot be any genuine labour movement in Singapore because of that? Would the Minister please answer these questions?

And then he says, "The Government doesn't want to use a sledgehammer to kill a fly." What he is saying is, "Of course, we have got the laws to deal with the foreign press. But we don't want to use them." That is the clearest admission we could have from the Government that anything that has been reported by the foreign press did not come within the scope of enabling a prosecution against the press under the Sedition Act or the Internal Security Act. Of course, they can also be taken to task for contempt of court. So what the Minister is saying, "Whatever they are writing does not really come under these laws. So we have got to have something else now." In other words, suppress information from the people of Singapore.

The tragedy is that it is the more serious papers that will be shut out, not the cheap sensational journals. It is papers like the Financial Times that might suffer which criticize Singapore. It is papers like the Asian Wall Street Journal. I can see the Asian Wall Street Journal is clearly on the hit list. It is those journals which will suffer. And who will suffer as a result? It is the Singaporeans.

About the local press, the responsible local press, one can see how responsible they are over the reports that have appeared in the papers over the last few days. That, according to the Government, is a responsible press. Does the Minister know of the telephone conversations I have had with members of the public who say they are disgusted, sick, with what they read in the papers. And they say, "They take us to be fools, the Straits Times."

Let me just give two illustrations. When was it that I forced an admission from the Prime Minister? I had to force it out of him that, as a reasonable man, he was left with the view that Mr Michael Khoo was transferred because he had made many mistakes and acquitted Jeyaretnam and Wong. He says, "I agree. That's what I said." Does the Straits Times carry that forced admission of the Prime Minister? That is the most telling point in the whole debate.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, your 10 minutes are up.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I just have one more minute, Mr Speaker, Sir?

Mr Speaker: No. 11.39 pm

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, since the First Reading of this Bill, many arguments have been advanced against the Bill, some of which have been repeated in this House. Typically, they fall into the following categories:

(1) The Bill will restrict free access to information.

(2) By introducing this Bill, it is implied that Singaporeans are not able to determine for themselves what is true reporting and what is false.

(3) This Bill is ineffective since its impact on the publishers would be minimal as circulation revenue hardly covers cost. I will take each of these points in turn.

The Member for Anson has dwelt on the first two points extensively. He asserted that Singaporeans would lose their right to access of information under this Bill. Let us look at the facts. In this age of instantaneous satellite telecast, the world is indeed getting smaller.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is value criticisms, opinions.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: What is happening in the far corners of the world can be viewed in the other part of the world at the same time. For instance, during the recent World Cup games in Mexico, we all witnessed grown men coming to work with sleepy eyes for staying up very early in the morning watching the telecast of the games.

Furthermore, computers are becoming more dominant in the information storage, distribution and transmission. With computer networks spanning the globe, information flows freely across national boundaries. Over the computer networks, millions of characters will flow every second across the wire. And it is close to impossible to regulate such flow of information. Any attempt to do so, in fact, would be futile. Furthermore, there is nothing in this Bill that will restrict the free flow of information, particularly when they are transmitted in electronic form. So free flow of information exists and will still continue to exist in Singapore.

When the Member for Anson was arguing his point on the free flow of information yesterday, I pointed out to him that he was contradicting himself by stating, on one hand, the world is getting smaller and, on the other hand, because of this Bill, the freedom of information is endangered. He countered by saying that he was not talking about news items. Indeed, he was talking about judgment, opinion and analysis. So there it is, he is not really talking about freedom of information in general. He is talking specifically about freedom of information of judgment, opinion and analysis.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That is all for information. What others think about it.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: And whose judgment, opinion and analysis is he referring to?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Others.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Foreigners' judgment.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Foreigners' opinions and foreigners' analysis.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is wrong with that?

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: This is precisely what this Bill is addressing, consistently biased foreign judgment, opinion and analysis. So when the Member for Anson says that without freedom of information, we cannot have creativity, he is not referring to the freedom of information but freedom of foreign JOA (judgment, opinion and analysis). Is he saying that, without these foreign JOAs, Singaporeans cannot have creativities? I think if he is saying so, it is an insult to all Singaporeans. I believe we can count on Singaporeans to form their own judgment and their own opinion.

Whether one or two publications would be affected by the Bill is not going to restrict or affect the amount of information flowing into Singapore. And Singaporeans will continue to have access to all the information and facts they need to form their own judgment and opinion. Moreover, who are the Singaporeans who subscribe and read foreign publications? By and large, they are the lawyers, doctors, lecturers, engineers and executives in the private and public sectors. These are the well-educated, well-read, well-travelled, Singaporeans and they are trained to think logically. In short, they are the elite of our country, the decision makers. So if you can trust the destiny of our nation in the hands of these people, surely we can trust them to have the faculty, the intelligence and the logical thinking to read for themselves and to come to a logical conclusion, to decide what is biased reporting and what is not.

While the individual can be counted on to think logically, the mood of the collective readership of a publication can be manipulated by systematically focussing the consciousness of the reader on certain issues and by the proper choice of headlines and photographs. This is what this Bill is all about, Mr Speaker, Sir, to prevent foreign manipulation of public opinion. Still, under the Bill, foreign judgment, opinions and analysis will continue to be accessible and available since the declared publications will still be allowed to circulate in Singapore. Even then the instruments of information, reproduction and transmission, such as photocopiers and facsimile machines, are readily available and accessible in Singapore. Interesting judgment, opinions and analysis can be transmitted, copied and distributed at very low cost. We can count on the resourcefulness of Singaporeans that this article will find their way into the hands of interested parties. Another form of information exchange that is also becoming more common nowadays is the computer bulletin board. This is a private information centre where a user with a home computer can dial-up the bulletin computers and produce the information at leisure. Before the Monitor ceased publication, we may recall that it indeed operated a bulletin board where a user could dial-up for news and other interesting tidbits.

Mr Speaker, Sir, via all the means I have mentioned and some that I did not and some that I am ignorant of, it is clear that access to information will continue to remain free. The net effect of this Bill is that Singaporeans will still get to read whatever interest them. But the fact that they are reading this article will not show up in the circulation statistics of anybody.

This brings me to the argument why we should bother about reducing the number of copies in circulation. One part of the argument is that the impact would be minimal because the revenue generated by the sales hardly covers cost. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is clear that whoever advanced this argument knows very little about the newspaper and publication business. For many newspapers or publications, while it is true that circulation revenues hardly cover distribution costs, it is also true that the major revenue of any commercially operated publications is derived from advertisement. And advertisement revenue is the function of, firstly, the number of copies subscribed and who the subscribers are, as well as the number of copies sold at the newsstands. The higher the circulation, the wealthier the readership, the greater is the demand for advertisement space by businesses and the more one can charge for carrying the advertisement. The fact that some publications, such as weekend newspapers, are distributed free clearly illustrates this. Since any commercially operated publications must be profitable to remain in business, circulation figures are indeed watched very carefully. In short, circulation is what makes or breaks a publication.

The Singapore readership with its high income level and large disposal income is a prime target group for consumer product companies doing business in this region. I think one does not have to be a successful businessman to realize that, for any publication with a substantial circulation in Singapore, its Singapore circulation figures are very important to its profitability indeed.

So one might ask that if circulation is so important, why would any publication, which is not politically funded and motivated, consistently adopt a rabble-rouser stance towards all the countries that it has circulation in? A journalist would say that it is for the freedom of speech, justice, human rights, etc., all lofty idealistic concepts. But if one asks a publisher, his interest would be to sell his newspaper or his magazine. How to do so in a crowded field of publications? Well, one has to be different, to stand out by coming out with catchy titles and controversial articles. Thus, the editorial policy would be to project a perception in the reader's mind that the publication's articles are probing and thought-provoking. But in spite of all this, the ultimate aim must be to increase the circulation and thereby improving the bottom line.

To this end, one finds articles written in some foreign publications touching on issues that are sensitive in a multi-racial and multi-religious society like Singapore, issues that, by national consensus, all responsible Singaporeans consider too sacrosanct to debate in a very careless manner. In pursuing their own ends, some of these foreign journalists are playing havoc with our nation building process, while all the while behaving self-righteously under the delusion that they are the guardians of truth and liberty.

While Singaporeans can be counted to sift out the prejudices from the fact, the same cannot be said of foreigners with a little background understanding of Singapore. These foreigners will arrive at a distorted impression of Singapore and among them there could be potential investors. Even if one single potential investor is so influenced, then the efforts by EDB, TDB, etc, to project Singapore as a good place to invest will be wasted.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is really no reason why such foreign publications should continue to profit at our expense. With the ability to restrict the circulation of foreign publications which consistently present a biased view of Singapore, the Bill will provide an effective leverage against them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe this Bill is appropriate and will be effective in dealing with these publications. 11.52 am

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to join in the debate? I rise to oppose the motion.

May I, first of all, be allowed to make certain comments on what the Member for Bukit Timah has just said. He has made such sweeping statements about the foreign press. I am not protecting the foreign press in any way and I have to declare that I have got no connections with any foreign press. But let us hear what the Member for Bukit Timah has said. He says that the foreign press has consistently given biased judgment, opinions and analysis. Is this true?

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Minister is going to produce it.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, I think it is high time that the Government should produce such evidence.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, point of clarification by Dr Wang.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: I stand by what I said and I would like the Member to point out where I said, "All foreign publications consistently present a biased view of Singapore."

Mr Chiam See Tong: I have just said that he said that the foreign press consistently gave biased judgment, opinion and analysis. Perhaps he should produce the evidence and not just make sweeping statements. I do not think this is true, especially when we are referring to prestigious foreign journals, like the London Times, or the New York Wall Street Journal, or Newsweek or Time Magazine.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen rose -

Mr Speaker: Another point of clarification, Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong resumed his seat.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Point of clarification. Will the Member clarify at which point did I say the foreign publications I am referring to are the prestigious publications he is referring to? I merely point out the facts and he is jumping to conclusions.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, he made a statement and I am just pointing out that these prestigious journals do not engage in a campaign against Singapore. They certainly do not. And he says "foreign manipulation of public opinion." Again, is this true? What interest do journals have in wanting to manipulate our public opinion in Singapore? The word "manipulate" means there is a policy. It goes out, not just by chance but by planning. Certainly, I do not think you can accuse any foreign press of wanting to manipulate our public opinion. Then again he says that the foreign press are politically funded and motivated. These are very strong words.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, another point of clarification from Dr Wang.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: My statements are all printed in black and white and I will defend my speech against the Member for Potong Pasir if he is going to distort what I have said.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I had the opportunity, together with the Member for Anson, of meeting Mrs Graham. I am sure people who talk about the foreign press would know who Mrs Graham is. She is the owner of the Washington Post and also the owner of Newsweek. Newsweek, in fact, has been the subject of a contempt action in our courts. Certainly I cannot say that she is trying to manipulate our public opinion here or consistently present a biased judgment, opinion or analysis. They may, through the over-enthusiasm of some of their reporters, have occasionally. I think this is no fault of the reporters. Some reporters have been involved in contempt, slander suits, but that does not put them all in one sweep into one category, and say that they are out to create havoc in Singapore's nation building effort. Again I think this may not be very true. He says foreigners have little knowledge of Singapore. How does he know that? There are many specialists who have put Singapore under the microscope and studied Singapore. I think many of these foreigners know more about Singapore than many Singaporeans. They are specialists who come here and make a study of it.

An hon. Member: Name one.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I say there are.

Some hon. Members: Name one.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Well, if you want to know, there are people who have written books about Singapore.

An hon. Member: Name one.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think there is a Mr T.S. George who has written a book about Singapore. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker, Sir, in a democratic country, I think the people have to be very slow in handing too much power to the government. I think, through the history of democratic countries, the people have learnt that. They do not want to hand every power to the government and they themselves have got nothing left. There must be a balance, a balance between the people and the government, a balance of power. We cannot hand over all powers through many legislations to the government in which the government can act, almost literally if it so wishes, in any way it likes; even in this small amendment which I shall refer to.

So I think I should ask the people of Singapore to be very slow in giving too much power to the Government. Of course, we have got two Opposition Members here and we always are watching the amendments to the various Acts here which come in fairly quick sequences. The Backbenchers here may on the one hand rise and oppose the amendment but on the other hand they vote for it. What sort of Members are they? Where is their integrity? I think they should resign. If I were them, I would resign. On the one hand, they propose a stand, "This is what I believe", loud and clear, over television, over the press. They say so. But when it comes to voting, they vote against exactly what they have said. Are we breeding such Members of Parliament ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: That is the society the Government wants.

Mr Chiam See Tong: --- without any honesty in their beliefs? They only say. They only speak out. But it has been said, people will judge you by what you speak, and what you do also. So if Members who have got some opinions and who feel that certain amendments should not be passed in the interest of Singapore, then I would urge them to be fearless and vote against those amendments. I think this is good for Singaporeans. We cannot breed a double-faced Singapore type of person. In a later part of the day, perhaps when we debate on the HDB we will show that, in fact, even Government bodies tend to take different views of one certain policy. This is the sort of society we are breeding.

It is not often true that the interest of a political party coincides with the interest of the nation. I think this can be said to be quite true. What is the interest of a political party? Of course, the interest of a political party is to be in power all the time, as many years as possible, and it will do all sorts of things to make sure that it is in power. Balanced against that, we have the interest of the nation. What sort of nation do we want to build? Do you want to continue to have this paternalistic style of government in Singapore where every citizen has to be told what to read, how to think, how to behave? Do we want to continue all this while? This amendment is exactly what it intends to do.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Faceless society.

Mr Chiam See Tong: You cannot read this. You can only read what is printed in the Straits Times or the Chinese press. This is preserving the paternalism in Singapore. Of course, this amendment is against the free flow of information. Of course, it is against freedom of the press. There is no two-way about it and we say we are going to make Singapore a brain centre. How can we make a brain centre when we restrict information? You must look at the good, the bad, the ugly, then you can have a good brain. You grow plants in a green house and you expect the plants to be sturdy. It is those plants that are planted outside, having been beaten by the wind, the rain, the snow, the hail and can still stand firm, these are the plants that we can say are really strong. Our people are still being kept in the green house, and how can we have a brain centre in Singapore? We want an education centre.

It is not in the interest of the country to extend Police powers, to de-politicize the people, to live in fear. How can we have a vibrant, dynamic society when we restrict information? On the one hand, we have got the interests of the nation. These are the things that we want to build. But on the other hand, we have got the interests of the political party. It does not want too many people who are politically motivated and who have got plenty of knowledge of politics.

What does this amendment want to do? It really wants to blacklist all foreign journals that do not speak well of the PAP. That is all, no more, no less. What happens if the foreign journals engage in the domestic policies of Singapore but speak highly of the PAP? Will they be restricted?

Mr Jeyaretnam: No. 1 seller.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes. Of course, they will be allowed. It is only when they propound views which the PAP does not think suit them, views which are perhaps canvassed by the Opposition, that they say these papers are engaging in the domestic policies of Singapore. How are you going to judge this sweeping law "engaging in the domestic policies of Singapore"? Who is going to judge? Are we going to have a panel? Are we going to have a few persons to say, "Well, this is engaging in domestic policies and this is not?" Who is to set the rules? It is obvious. This is a political piece of legislation, no more, no less. This is to curb views which are against the Government. Once they curb views against the Government, they have got this amendment here which says "declare them foreign newspapers." Blacklisted. That is all. And once they are blacklisted, they are finished. The most you can carry is five copies, and even when you carry five copies of this newspaper, you have got to explain that you are not going to sell and you are not going to distribute them. The onus of proof is on you. They are finished and if they really want to publish again, they have to come to the Minister begging, "Please. We would not publish that kind of news again." This is coercion, no more, no less.

At one time, I was told, some newspapers went into Indonesia with whole paragraphs blackened out. What sort of impression do I have of that country? I say that is a terrible country, of course. They openly declare that it is a guided democracy. They are quite sincere about it. They said, "We are a guided democracy." So are we having a guided democracy in Singapore now? The Minister may restrict the sale or distribution of each issue of any declared foreign newspaper granted approval. Once a declared foreign newspaper gets approval under the new sub- section 18A(2), the Minister may require such number of copies as he thinks fit "to be marked in such manner as he may direct." What does that mean? It means that he says, "All right. All these paragraphs, all these sentences will have to be blacked out before you can distribute." So one of these days when we open the pages of a foreign journal, we might say "Why are all these pages marked in black?" And the people will get even more curious. They want to know why this is blacked out. It is obvious. Curiosity is part of human nature.

And what will foreigners who come to Singapore as tourists think when they buy a journal from the airport and open it up and see certain places are blacked out? What is their reaction? Their first reaction is that there is censorship in Singapore. It may not be, but this is how an objective and reasonable person will react and foreigners ---

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): Point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is the hon. Member referring to actual cases of partial censorship? Or is he referring to hypothetical cases that exist in his imagination?

Mr Chiam See Tong: The Member for Whampoa is a professor. I think he can read this new subsection (4) in page 2 of the Bill, and this is the power that is going to be given to the Minister. This is the power that he will have and he can exercise that power by blacking out any part of a declared foreign newspaper if he likes. Is he going to deny that? I am saying that if this piece of legislation is passed in this House and he exercises the power, this is exactly what will happen.

We want to encourage tourists to come to Singapore and I am just painting a scenario that can happen. Many of these tourists are not just ordinary persons. They are thinking persons. They talk, they publish, they write when they visit a country and they will go home, maybe to Norway or some of the other less known traditional places where our tourists come from. They will go home and write, "I made a visit to Singapore. The place was clean. There are many tall buildings. Nice beautiful cars. But they have also press censorship". They will say this. And I am not surprised if they said that. Just one statement like that when they go back to a country which has strong democratic institutions, how would the people there think of Singapore? They would think, "There is a Police state over here."

Do the Minister and all the legislators here in this Parliament want to create this kind of impression of Singapore? The Minister says the purpose of this Bill is to curb people printing or playing up on racial sensitivities and highlighting the problems of a minority race. Then he says that they will discredit some of our accepted institutions, like the courts. The third one is interesting. He says, "foreigners may impose their views of freedom on Singaporeans by not taking into account the local conditions." What does this last one really mean? I do not understand.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Member wants to quote me, he should quote it correctly, especially the last one.

Mr Chiam See Tong: It is definitely the views of freedom of foreigners and they have not taken into account the local conditions.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Can the Member please quote the whole section or the whole statement that I made about this point?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I got it straight from the Straits Times "when it imposes its own ideas of press freedom without understanding the nature of Singapore society." Is that correct now?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: In the earlier statement he made, Sir, he missed out a very critical word, ie, press freedom. He said "impose its own ideas of freedom" which is quite different from "its own ideas of press freedom." I think the Member does not understand.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Press freedom. I still do not understand what the Minister means by "own ideas of press freedom". Do we have a different type of press freedom in Singapore? Obviously, we have. The sort of press freedom in England, the sort of press freedom in Australia, the sort of press freedom in America, is obviously different from the press freedom in Singapore. What type of press freedom do we want to follow? Russia or China? Since you are against press freedom of the West, I would like to ask the Minister, "What sort of press freedom does Singapore really want to have?" I think the Minister afterwards in his reply should let the House know of what he has in mind.

But is it necessary to amend the law? There is already enough law and it has been published in our local newspapers. There is enough law already to curb all these problems. On racial sensitivities, I think the Internal Security Act is taking care of that. There is no communist threat to Singapore these days. So what is the Internal Security Act for? Perhaps the Minister for Home Affairs can tell us. I believe it is to curb the communal problems, and this is the No. 1 problem. Why do you need to amend the law?

Then what about interference in our institutions, especially our courts? There are already precedents. Newspapers which have printed matter affecting the impartiality of our courts have been hauled to the court and charged, and they have apologized. What more do they want? What extra powers do they want? After being charged in court and fined and apologized, do you think they will continue to print matter which will affect the impartiality of our courts? Certainly not. They are responsible newspapers.

This last one here - he says that there are certain foreign newspapers which would "want to impose its own ideas of press freedom without understanding the nature of the Singapore society." How can they do that? I think most of the press have appeared at least to side the Opposition in Singapore or write in favour of the Opposition because of the character of the mature Western countries which is a tendency to side the underdog. I do not think they want to manipulate our political system here. They look at Singapore and say, "Poor chaps, the Opposition is being downtrodden. All right. Why don't we just give them a boost?" I think that's about it. I do not think it is a massive campaign to manipulate. I am saying that if they did it, it is because of their sense of always wanting to assist the underdog. That is all. What is wrong with that? Any sportsman would know this kind of a thing. It is obviously on your side. You do not play sports. You do not know. What is wrong with that? I think that is it and no more. If there are many occasions in which the Minister thinks that foreign reporters have been trying to impose their ideas of press freedom here, then I think he should give us examples. Let us have them. Which are the articles he is referring to in which they are trying to impress their own ideas of press freedom in Singapore? I think he should come out with that because this amendment is a very serious one which curbs a lot of not only foreign press but Singaporeans. If I remember rightly, Police powers are given to certain officers of the Government, Postal Superintendent, officers of Customs, Police officers, any Police officer, and, of course, other officers authorized by the Minister. They can stop anybody and check and see whether there are declared foreign newspapers. One of these days when I walk along High Street with my bundle, it is quite legal for a police officer to stop me and say, "All right, let us have a look at what is inside? I am checking to see whether you have got a declared foreign newspaper."

An hon. Member: Playboy.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Speak for yourself. This is what it is. It is quite clear there. This Police officer has a very legitimate duty. We cannot fault him. It is the law. This is the sort of power we want to give to our police officers. Of course, the standard check in Singapore today is, "Let us have a look whether you have got an identity card. See that you are not an illegal immigrant." That is one of the Police powers. There are many other Police powers. But we are now giving an additional power to the Police and we cannot complain. We cannot complain against the Police. It is there.

The Government has already powers. If any foreign journalist whom it thinks is twisting facts, within 24 hours his stay in Singapore can be removed and out he goes. This is being done. I think the latest one was when we had this Hotel New World disaster and this Filipino reporter reported that a rescuer, I think, demanded money before he would drag the victim out. She did not check the facts before she filed that report. And she was sent out, I believe, was it 48 hours? So the Government has already powers by just using Immigration laws.

The Member for Anson has pointed out and asked many questions of the Minister. How are you going to classify the things that are involved in domestic politics of Singapore? Perhaps I could add to that list. If a foreign newspaper says that the Government is interfering too much in the private enterprise, is that involving itself in domestic politics? Or if a foreign newspaper says that the invisible hand of the Government is, in fact, interfering in the wage system, not allowing the free market forces to work but controlling wage, and also if it should complain that the Government has put up high costs of production in Singapore, or it says that 2.6 million brains are better than one - I am sure the Minister has read that before - do all these things constitute involving in the domestic policies of Singapore?

I think Singaporeans must be allowed to think and decide for themselves. We have already seen recently Ministers going to our schools, to our polytechnics giving them lectures, trying to put the Government's point of view across. If the Government has already put up efforts - Ministers going out to give talks to our students, university students, and polytechnic students and, of course you also have the assistance of the TV, the press to sway public opinion - why are you so afraid to allow just a few articles appearing in the foreign press which may deviate from established Government policies? Why would you not allow some kind of a balance? Give a chance to these students whom you speak to. Let them see that there is a different point of view.

Is the Government afraid because of the last election results? You will remember that the pendulum has swung. The pendulum has swung 12.3% towards the Opposition and the momentum has already been gathered, and you are trying to stop the momentum. Is it what it is all about? You are afraid that if the momentum of the pendulum is allowed to swing to its logical end, PAP will be thrown out. Is that what you are afraid of? This piece of legislation is not against Singapore's interest. It is against the PAP's interest. So I will have to oppose it because, on balance, whether or not this piece of legislation will benefit Singapore for all the policies that you want to make Singapore to be - a vibrant, dynamic society, brain centre, you want it to be an information centre and the rest of it, I think the balance will definitely weigh in the interest of Singapore not to have this legislation. And I would certainly urge Backbenchers, if they have got any opinion at all, to speak up, and if they speak against, I would urge them certainly not to vote for it.

Mr Dhanabalan: You do not understand.

Mr Chiam See Tong: That is the thing, you see. You have just said out, "You do not understand the system here." What is the system here? As shown in this Parliament, you want all your Backbenchers to speak up, to voice their opinion. And none of them voted against. In fact yesterday we had only one brave ex-Deputy Prime Minister who dared to abstain.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Only abstain.

Mr Chiam See Tong: It would seem to be normal if a few of that one or two voted against, but not all, like a sheep being led down the garden path.

An hon. Member: Slaughtered.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, to be slaughtered one of these days, as probably you have, being toppled from top posts. [Interruption] I thought you were once very close to the Prime Minister. Now you are sitting very far away from him.

Dr Augustine Tan: What relevance does that have to the debate, may I ask?

Mr Chiam See Tong: This is in reply to your remark.

This piece of legislation is exactly a reflection of what Singapore is going to be. You have this control, more controls, just as has been illustrated in this House. I do not think big disaster will come to any of the Backbenchers if one or two of them, let us see, are brave enough to vote against a piece of legislation. And if they are really convinced of that, I would really applaud them and it would be a very good day for Singapore. Thank you.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that the Member for Potong Pasir does not understand parliamentary democracy. As it is practised in Britain, and as we have adopted here in Singapore, any Member of the ruling Party may express their opinions freely. But there are times when the whip is not lifted and they are expected to vote together with the Government. There are times when matters of conscience are at stake and the whip is lifted and then the Members can vote in accordance with their conscience.

Mr Chiam See Tong: On a point of clarification.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, I do not have much time. I would not give way.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think you know parliamentary procedure. You have got one hour.

Dr Augustine Tan: I am not giving way, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Sit down, Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Why are you afraid?

Dr Augustine Tan: He has had his say. Allow me to have my say. I have a few other questions for the hon. Members of the Opposition. Let me ask them: are there any areas of national interest on which all of us, both PAP and Opposition, can stand together? Name one issue that both of them, or either of them, have in this House expressed support for as a national issue worthy of a common stand.

The Member for Potong Pasir referred to a case of contempt of court. He referred to Newsweek, but I believe he was referring to the Asian Wall Street Journal sometime last year.

Mr Jeyaretnam: No. There was the Newsweek as well.

Dr Augustine Tan: May I ask whether he and his colleague are questioning, again, the integrity of our courts? May I ask whether they agree that there was contempt of court?

Mr Jeyaretnam rose -

Dr Augustine Tan: May I be allowed to finish speaking first, then you can have your say?

Mr Jeyaretnam: You asked questions and we try to answer. And you say, "No, no."

Dr Augustine Tan: I did not ask you to stand up immediately to answer. Some questions are rhetorical, do you not understand?

Mr Jeyaretnam: You don't want answers.

Dr Augustine Tan: I know what your answers are.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Oh, you know that! So why ask?

Dr Augustine Tan: I know what your answers are. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has pointed out that we have over 3,700 foreign publications in Singapore and it is only a very small minority that have caused trouble to us. In fact, Sir, most journalists and most publications have been responsible in their reporting. I personally have great admiration for journalism as a profession. Journalists have to get access to the latest information and many a time they have to write on areas outside their expertise. How they do so, sometimes I do not know. But they do so and most of them do so quite well. But therein lies a problem, especially with foreign journalists who come to Singapore for the first time. They need to have access to people, the right people for the right information. But at the same time one must sympathize with Government Ministers. With so many hundreds or thousands of journalists banging on their doors asking for interviews, it is just impossible for them to see all of them. But then what is the reaction of those journalists who are denied access to the relevant Minister? Do they get slighted and then end up with biased reporting? Or do they merely go on to report inadequately, based upon inadequate information? I believe we find both categories of journalists; both kinds of reactions have been manifested.

What then is the solution, if there is any solution? I believe one such solution is to have public relations officers for each Ministry, statutory board (I know some of them already have), who can meet these journalists and provide them with up-to-date information and with explanations of the rationale of Government policies and the changes thereof? But at the same time we should be mindful of what the Minister said - that magazines and newspapers are a very powerful tool for influencing public opinion, and anybody who exercises such power must at the same time be responsible. And if they do not themselves exercise responsibility, then somebody must constrain them into so doing. Sir, even in terms of local newspapers, and commonly in other newspapers as well, you will get a headline on a subject on the front page of the newspaper, some error is made either intentionally or otherwise. And when a complaint is lodged, the next day or a few days later, a small correction appears on the back page. Perhaps, Sir, there should be a law requiring equal space and equal prominence for correction of such mistakes, especially when such mistakes are to the detriment of the reputations of the injured parties.

Sir, the Minister when he moved the motion for the Bill mentioned that he was concerned about manipulation and interference with local politics. He mentioned areas such as race, religion, local institutions such as our courts, ideas of press freedom. But I do not recall that he mentioned the right to quote Opposition Members of Parliament, no matter how obnoxious they are, how wrong their views are and so on and so forth.

There is one important area which I had hoped he would touch upon and that was referred to by the Member for Potong Pasir, although he presented a different view, and that has to do with attempts at what I call economic sabotage of Singapore. Sir, we all know that Singapore has a very small open economy. We all know that it depends very much on the confidence we can generate on the part of foreign investors who then put their money into factories and other facilities in Singapore. And if that confidence were to be damaged, the economy would suffer and, of course, there would be political, social and other repercussions. Of course, Sir, it is not easy to identify when somebody is engaging in economic sabotage. But I want to refer to some recent reports from the Asian Wall Street Journal. I am not saying that they point conclusively to economic sabotage. All I say is that they raise certain questions in my mind, and if I were as suspicious as the Members for Anson and Potong Pasir, I would of course jump to the conclusion that there is economic sabotage but I am not about to.

So let me refer to some of these articles. It is interesting, Sir, that the local stock market has made a strong recovery in the last two months, in June and July. It is also interesting that towards the end of June, there appeared a spate of articles in the Asian Wall Street Journal. I shall go over a few of the contents so that you may judge for yourself what is happening. On the 24th of June 1986 on page 1, there was an article by Stephen Duthie and the headline was "Investors wary of Singapore's New Look" and it begins:

'Has Singapore got a deal for you! Or so it hopes.

Humbled by recession and shaken by regional competition, Singapore is bouncing back like a hungry barker at a county fair. The government has touched up a few old sales pitches and added some new ones. Now government officials are taking the new, improved act on the road in an attempt to attract investments from foreign concerns.'

I quote again:

'Foreign investors are showing interest in the new look, but many of them are biding their time.'

"We heard some of this a decade ago and a few of us got burned," says a European manufacturing executive, who requests anonymity.' And then on page 9 at the end, it says:

'A burst in new foreign investment won't solve all of Singapore's economic problems, Mr Watson says. The country still lacks "a fully conducive environment where entrepreneurship can flourish," he says. But that too "is going to take time."' That is one article. On June the 25th, the same Journal had a headline: "Property Slump Hurts Singapore Banks - Despite Real Estate Glut, Loans Flowed to Sustain Building Spree." It is based upon the property market report which was presented to Parliament sometime in March or April. In other words, a few months later.

And on page 8, headline, "Singapore Banks Face More Bad Debts". Mind you, these articles were written at a time when the economy was showing signs of recovery and the stock market was buoyant.

Thursday, June the 26th, page 1, "Surge of Stocks In Singapore Puzzles Analysts" by Helen E. White. And on page 6,""The real question is whether it's possible for Singapore's economy to take off in a vacuum, and the answer is probably no," the analyst says."

Tuesday, July the 1st, 1986: "Singapore Sees End of High-Growth Era." And on page 11 on the same article: "Singaporeans Brace for Extended Slump." This was by June Kronholz who came to Singapore, I believe, a couple of months earlier than that, interviewed a number of people, including myself, and somehow put this delayed article on July 1st, 1986.

Sir, I stated at the outset that I do not jump to the conclusion that these are indications of a sustained effort at economic sabotage. But the timing, with the stock market boom, suggests to me that there could be some correlation, some attempt at mischief to undermine confidence in this economy. Now, what defence do we have against such attacks? Singapore is a small country. So we take whatever steps that we can to defend ourselves. And what is wrong with the Government attempting to defend the integrity of Singapore and to protect the well-being of Singapore?

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Member for Whampoa himself is an economic expert. He is neither here nor there after reading all these quotes from the foreign journals. The point of clarification is this. Is he saying that there is economic sabotage? If not, say so. Do not just leave it in the air as if there is or there is not.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, at the National University of Singapore we have a department called English Language Deficiency Department. I recommend a course for him.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Why are you afraid to answer?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, by way of clarification to try to answer the Member for Whampoa's questions, could he repeat them again? I will answer them now. What is it that he wanted to know?

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe the Hansard is available and he can look at it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Tell us now what you wanted to know. You now withdraw your questions, do you?

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been expressed by the two Opposition Members that, with the passing of this Bill, freedom of speech and expression in Singapore will be in jeopardy. There are some who feel that we will be insulating ourselves from the views of foreigners about ourselves. Can this be so?

Sir, may I just make three observations? Firstly, it is not the intention of the Bill to ban foreign publications totally. The aim is to restrict circulation and to deny profit to those who are consistently irresponsible in reporting. Our local journalists, I believe, being enlightened professionals will continue to have access to most publications. Likewise, those in the intellectual and academic circles, should these persons feel strongly that they agree with the views of the foreign press, I am sure they will have no hesitation in putting forth these ideas in print in their own publications. And we have thousands of local publications, all publicly air their views. However, the difference is that these are people with a vested interest in Singapore. They are Singaporeans and I believe they will be responsible in their reporting.

The Opposition Member for Anson has made these remarks. "Why must the Government ridicule and humiliate our citizens?" See what he has said. He has labelled the press "a gutter press" and these are his remarks regarding the press: "no investigative journalism in Singapore; no ability to grasp the essentials". He is ashamed of the press in Singapore.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: He asked whether ours is a responsible press. He calls our society a faceless society. Who is humiliating us, the Government or the Opposition Member? Mr Speaker, Sir, I think he has not only humiliated one or two persons, he has humiliated a whole profession, all our journalists, and this morning he has humiliated all Singaporeans. I asked myself, why?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I said the Government wants a society of faceless ---.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, will you stop interrupting?

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: The members of the press have been so quiet towards his accusations. I tried to understand why they have not defended themselves. I realized that if they replied to these accusations, it may be perceived by the public that they are using their own columns to their own advantage. This is indeed self-discipline and a responsible press. The other point is that, if they replied to these accusations, it would only give credibility to these accusations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to touch on the other two points briefly. Secondly, there are three million tourists or visitors to Singapore every year. We have thousands of expatriates from all over the world working in Singapore. Singaporeans make thousands of visits overseas every month. Can we remain insulated? I do not think so.

Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been mentioned by my various colleagues that the world is now tuned in to each other. Modern telecommunications will keep us in touch with the world and we will not be insulated from the rest of the world. 12.38 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Encik Yatiman Yusof): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill.

It is quite unfortunate that time is running short. But compared to all other speakers who have spoken before us today, I have the benefit of knowing both sides of the world, so to speak. I was a journalist. I was an editor and now I am a Member of this House. I think there are two important points which the Opposition had failed to grasp from the amendment. One is their unequal exaggeration. We have put this Bill in perspective. We have stated earlier that there are three existing laws that could curb the press. But despite the presence of all the three laws, we have yet to ban publications continuously like many other more liberated societies. The Opposition had failed to identify that it is the motive behind the law that is more important. It is not purely having the law in your hand. If the motive of having those laws in our hand is to isolate Singapore from the entire world, as what the Opposition has claimed, I think Singaporeans would stand to examine the practice of this Government for the past 25 years. The fact remains that there was not a case.

Point No. 2, Mr Speaker, Sir. As journalists, there are basic tenets that they have to follow. They have to be accurate. They have to be factual. Their comment has to be fair, "fair" meaning taking into account all points of view. This is where our definition of responsible and credible journalism differs. Credible journalism, in the eyes of the Opposition, means newspapers and publishers and journalists who at all times report glowingly, putting the Opposition into a position that they are the only champions of the poor Singaporean. We had a good example in a dear friend of the Member for Anson who had written at least three articles in the New Straits Times. One article praising him in a very glowing manner, creating a half-God in the Opposition Member for Anson, and on the other hand, putting down Singapore to an abysmally embarrassing situation. That is responsible journalism in the eyes of the Opposition. Let us be honest about the whole issue.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What about the Straits Times praising you?

Encik Yatiman Yusof: The whole issue at hand is for us to educate the foreign newspaper owners that they cannot reap profit out of our misery. It is well and good to talk about the ideal of freedom of expression and so on and so forth. Let me give you just two examples. One example was that when the Prime Minister went to Sri Lanka we had one newspaper, of course, belonging to the Opposition, carrying a huge banner across ten columns saying"follow this white monkey, you go to hell". That is the extent of freedom of the press in which the Opposition is championing, a limitless, a boundless, freedom of expression. What is the cost? Everyone knows what has happened to Sri Lanka now.

Another point worth noting, and this is from my own experience and many of us have our own experience. When I applied for a visa to go to the United States, of course in my passport then I was described as a journalist, I was given a six-month visa compared to other ordinary citizens who are given a five-year visa to the US, when I sat foot in Hawaii, the entry point of USA. The moment they saw that I was a journalist they asked me to give a written undertaking that I should not report anything going on in America. That practice is happening and that practice is being imposed by what the Opposition considered as the model of freedom of expression, the champion of world liberty. Such denial is a clear indication that the claim is not as true as what the Opposition said.

The Opposition thought that Singapore is a suppressed society and we are building a green house here, that we are shutting out from the whole world. Is the Opposition not aware that anyone can come to Singapore on a social visit pass, write about Singapore, and fly off the country without any restriction? Tell me the instances where every journalist who comes into Singapore has got to give the reason for coming and an undertaking not to write stories about Singapore?

I think these two examples, a very simple first-hand experienced example, would illustrate ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of clarification. Is the Member aware ---

Encik Yatiman Yusof: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am only given five minutes to speak. The hon. Member for Anson has been given one hour to speak, I thought ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: You can have another 20 minutes after lunch.

Mr Speaker: Do sit down, Mr Jeyaretnam. The Member is not giving way.

Encik Yatiman Yusof: Mr Speaker, Sir, that serves to illustrate how the Opposition in trying to criticize the Bill had gone beyond the bounds of reasonable and responsible argument by stating an excessive exaggeration in which even the press find it difficult to swallow. If such stunts are allowed in the press, we can imagine how our balanced, responsible, factual, accurate and fair press in Singapore would be tilted to one side and it goes down into the sewer. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are a lot of points I wanted to raise,

but unfortunately time is so limited. I beg to support the Bill.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I must thank the various PAP Members for speaking on the Bill and supporting it. The Member for Bukit Timah talked about computer technology, satellite and he mentioned a new thing called computer bulletin board, and he asked whether the Member for Anson knows that with such a kind of technology we just cannot shut Singapore out from the rest of the world. But I am afraid his words are lost like water on a duck's back. I do not think the Member for Anson really understands this kind of technology. If he does, he would not say that we are shutting Singaporeans out.

The purpose of this Bill, as I have said, is to restrict the circulation. The Bill is not to ban a publication. Singaporeans still can read the limited number of copies that are allowed in Singapore. They will be found in public libraries. So long as one person has access to it, anybody else can get a copy of it. It is quite simple, really, in this world of the photocopier. So let us be very clear about this. We are not shutting Singaporeans out from the rest of the world. It is not possible. Singaporeans travel. Thousands of them travel. Thousands of foreigners come here. Thousands of them work here. So it is not possible to shut Singapore out. This is just one of the deceptions of the Member for Anson, which I will talk about later.

Newspapers are commercial organizations and that is why they have a profit motive. They are not a charity. They are not here to just tell the world or to tell Singaporeans about what is happening in the world at their own cost. No. They can even circulate the copies free of charge and yet be able to make money out of it so long as they get a wide circulation. There was an article just about two or three weeks ago in the Time Magazine which shows that you can give out free newspapers, journals, to thousands of people without collecting a cent. We have an example in Singapore, called the Weekend East. Those who live in the eastern sector of Singapore get a copy of the Weekend East free. How is it that they can do it free? Because they get advertisements. That is why they can give it out free. So newspapers are commercial organizations. They are not here to do us charity. For those publications I mentioned yesterday, Asiaweek, Far Eastern Economic Review, Asian Wall Street Journal, one copy out of seven of their total sales is sold in Singapore. Can they not, and will they not, hope to increase their circulation by writing more about local issues? If they do, do they have the free licence to do so, and impose or set the standard of press freedom, as we used to know in the Western world, on Singapore? I do not think so. Let me show afterwards what sort of press freedom there is in the West, what are the problems and issues that have caused people in the West with the kind of Western standard of journalism.

The Member for Fengshan also said that we will only act against such a publication if it consistently attempts to manipulate and influence our people in local politics. We are not talking about one or two articles. We are talking about the consistency in the pattern of reporting. The experience of the Member for Kampong Kembangan shows that even in the Western world like the United States where press freedom and the First Amendment of the Constitution is in force, he as a journalist cannot just get in there and write anything he wants.

Now, the Member for Anson. Yesterday he said that countries have held us in contempt. I do not know which country has held us in contempt. Does he know? He said he knows.

Mr Jeyaretnam: A lot of people have.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Tell me which country has held Singapore in contempt?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Perhaps the Minister forgets that the Socialist International was ready to throw Singapore out because it held the kind of democracy practised by the Singapore Government in contempt. Don't you know that they were ready to throw you out?

An hon. Member: What country is that?

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Socialist International which comprise all the countries.

An hon. Member: Which country?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Where? Where? Where?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Perhaps the Member for Anson would like to tell me where is this country called Socialist International? I studied Geography but I have not come across such a country.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Singapore at one time belonged to this. Singapore was an honoured member, and now he asks me, "Where is Socialist International?" The Prime Minister went to address this organization, and so Singapore at that time was a member. Then they decided - the Dutch, the British, all the democratic countries - decided that Singapore's practice was contemptuous.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: He is not answering the question.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What do you mean I am not answering? I am answering it for you.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: No, I do not think so, Sir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You do not think so?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: That is another example of his deception, which I will mention again afterwards.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Minister point out what the deception is?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: He is trying to deceive us that Socialist International is a country. That is a deception.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Oh, my God. Would he answer, was Singapore a member of this organization or not?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, can you please ask the Member to sit down?

An hon. Member: No, Singapore was not.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Singapore was never a member?

An hon. Member: The PAP was.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I quoted the Member correctly because I took down those words that he mentioned. Anyway that is another matter.

Sir, yesterday we saw the same old behaviour of the Member for Anson. We saw it today. We heard the same old tune yesterday, we heard part of it this morning, and he delivered it in the same old way, which we are all so familiar. It is like a taperecorder, playing the same stuff over and over again. That waffle was nothing new. From the froth I cannot find a strand of information, a strand of argument that really supports his rejection of this Bill. I cannot find it. The only point that he made was "we are shutting Singaporeans out". But how can we shut Singaporeans out when we even allow copies to come in? We allow journalists to come and stay, and live and work. How can we do that? That is, again, another distortion in his mind. Of course, it is not surprising because I do not expect ivory to come from canine mouth. That is a Chinese saying. I am just translating it. gou ju zhang bu chu xiang ya . I am no expert in Chinese quotations but I just learn a few words here and there.

Remember there are 3,700 foreign publications and I have mentioned that. I think many of us also tune in to foreign broadcasting stations. There are quite a number of them around. There are foreign television stations. There are quite a number of them around too. With exposure to these foreign stations and foreign television, can we really shut ourselves out? There is no truth, therefore, that Singapore or the Government would deny Singaporeans of access to information. No foreign publication has been banned, except on moral grounds, except when it incites or it is against our religion or when it is of a communist nature. I do not have to defend the press when the Member yesterday made a tirade of the press. They are very capable of defending themselves. But sometimes I too feel that the press has given him ---

Mr Speaker: Order. It is 1.00 pm. I suspend this sitting and will take the Chair again at 2.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Speaker, Sir, before we adjourned for lunch, I was talking about the local press and the tirade of the Member for Anson against our press. I said they are capable of defending themselves. But one point mentioned by the Member is that we are only fed with one view and this is the English press. We have actually more than one newspaper. We have the Chinese papers. We have the Tamil papers. We have the Malay papers. We also have many other foreign publications which are freely available here and the Government also has not stopped the Workers Party or the SDP from hawking its Hammer or Demokrat. So how could we just be fed with one view unless again he is trying to hoodwink us.

He asked that our press should be a bit more investigative. We have seen an example of investigative press - the sorry saga of Mr Lim Poh Huat. But I think when newspapers get into investigative reporting, something may happen and, of course, that thing would be that the private lives of individuals will be completely exposed to the public view and sometimes through no fault of theirs, they will not be able to lead a normal life. If the press were to take up the suggestion of the Member to be investigative, maybe they can find out who Mr Percy Seneviratne is, what he has written about us. I think then people will know what this so-called man with integrity and respected by the Member for Anson has said about Singapore.

Investigative press, Sir, is not new in America, the model of press freedom, so often championed and quoted by the Member. I just need to quote one paragraph from an article in the Time magazine of 12th December 1983, with the headline "Journalism Under Fire". This is the view of the people who wrote this article about press freedom and investigative press in America. I quote:

'They are rude and accusatory, cynical and almost unpatriotic. They twist facts to suit their not-so-hidden liberal agenda. They meddle in politics, harass business, invade people's privacy, and then walk off without regard to the pain and chaos they leave behind. They are arrogant and self-righteous, brushing aside most criticism as the uninformed carping of cranks and ideologues. To top it off, they claim that their behavior is sanctioned, indeed sanctified, by the U.S. Constitution.'

The same article also carried the opinions of eight individuals who have in a way been the subject of an investigative press with the headline, "Your Story, but My Life". Let me just quote one of the interviews. This is on Richard Allen. I am sorry to bring this up, but I think Mr Richard Allen is well known. He was President Reagan's National Security Adviser in January 1982. He resigned from the job following allegations that he had improperly accepted gifts from Japanese journalists and businessmen. He was cleared of wrongdoing. This is what he said:

'We were held captive in our house by the media from roughly mid-November to early January. This was all day, every day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's, wedding anniversary, birthdays. They would begin to come at about 5.30 in the morning. I would be forced to respond at 6.30 am upon leaving the house. When I had nothing to say, they tried other ways to get a story. A CBS reporter tried to question my six-year-old daughter Kimberley, on her way to kindergarten: "Is your daddy home?" My kids were afraid to go out. Another CBS correspondent tried to find out whether Japanese businessmen were paying my bill at my favorite sushi shop. He gave the man who runs the shop the impression he was from the government, and the man produced the bills, which I had paid myself. That was absolutely unforgivable.'

'The problem is that the process feeds on itself. The Washington Post would run a story outlining new and anonymous innuendos directed against me and the network news directors would all feel driven by competitive pressure to try to get a response. The remedy is self-restraint.'

For those who are interested in an investigative press I would commend them to read this article.

What is the Member for Anson's idea of a responsible press? We have the Asian Wall Street Journal, for example, whose circulation is one out of seven copies in Singapore. Over the last few days, since our debate in Parliament over the Commission of Inquiry, not a word has been printed in the Asian Wall Street Journal about this subject. Maybe they will do so later.

Let me comment on the three questions that the Member for Anson asked me whether if the foreign press write about caring society ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Lack of caring.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Lack of caring society, social engineering and the Secretary-General of NTUC and the Second Deputy Prime Minister is the same person. It is like asking me: Are snake bites poisonous? Will I get rabies if I were bitten by this dog? I do not know, unless you tell me what sort of snake it is; unless you tell me whether it is a mad dog. I cannot tell you without enough facts.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Point of clarification.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sit down, please.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am not asking for the effect.

Mr Speaker: He is not giving way, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: The Member for Potong Pasir opposed the Bill. So roundly, he said. I cannot blame him. We have Mary and the little lamb or a little calf who is easily led by the nose by his friend. I cannot expect anything else from him. He does not listen very well too and I also cannot blame him. But as a lawyer who can read simple English, he cannot understand the proposed section 18A(4) of the amendment Bill. He says that under section 18A(4) we will be able to black out the whole paragraph, the whole page, the whole article. That is not what it says. Read it carefully. Maybe he should follow the Member for Whampoa's advice to take a proficiency course in English in the University. His idea of press freedom is, he says, "Why should we have a different standard of press freedom?" Of course, we must, because our standard of development, our progress, our economy, our culture, our society, they are all very different from the West. So when you have two different sets of circumstances, two different sets of values, you cannot have the same yardstick to measure them. Can you?

The Member for Potong Pasir also mentioned his meeting with the Chairman and publisher of Newsweek and Washington Post; that both the Oppostion Members met her. I do not know what his point was. Maybe to inflate his own ego that he has met this publisher. But since he has met her, I presume that she must have given him her view of how an international press should operate and I hope that he has learned something from it. If he has not, maybe I would try to give an example of what is meant by an international press and how it should help the societies of the developing world.

Kathryn Graham was here in the early part of February. On the 3rd February she was interviewed by SBC. SBC asked her whether she felt that in international reporting the development goals of countries have to be respected in the reportage. That was SBC's question and Mrs Graham said:

'Absolutely yes. I think that the northern press when it goes into the lesser developed countries or the middle income countries such as Singapore of course you have to respect the host country and you have to be sensitive to the issues there as you do everywhere.' Then she went on to say:

'I would say that there is a parallel in our own country when we are covering poor urban areas or black issues or even woman issues. At first I think the press has to be especially sensitive to whoever you are covering and to observe the regulations in the host country. It is absolutely right.' If the Member for Potong Pasir has not learned it, this is for his benefit.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What is the point in trying to bring this up?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is not to ban a foreign publication. This Bill is to allow the foreign publication that has meddled with Singapore's politics to even continue to circulate here. And when that publication is declared to have interfered or engaged in our domestic politics, it would still be allowed to be circulated and it will be available in our public libraries. So there is no question whatsoever of shutting our Singaporeans out from any information that is available in the world.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister, by way of clarification, if he will answer the other two questions which I posed to him. One, the very important question: does he or does he not have the very detailed analysis of foreign press reports over the last many years? Did he have it with him when he spoke at this function? Does he have it with him and will he produce it now?

Secondly, would he answer the question that I asked him: does the Prime Minister of Singapore content himself only with the Straits Times and the Chinese press and does not read any of the foreign newspapers?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the question on the Prime Minister is best to have it asked of the Prime Minister. But even if the Prime Minister were to have all those publications available to him, does it mean that Singaporeans do not? They have. As I said, these publications are available. Not a single foreign Western press is banned unless it is on communist, moral or ideological grounds. So Singaporeans will continue to have access to these publications.

Whether we would release the analysis, there is a Chinese saying too: da cao jing she, which means, if you are looking for a snake in the bush, do not go around beating the bush. When the time is due, when we decide to declare the publication as having been involved or engaged in our politics, we will make known the whole analysis; no doubt about that.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The question is: why does the Minister evade the question? Did he have with him at the time he spoke a very detailed analysis? If he did not have it, why does he not be honest enough to say, "I didn't have it." And would he then agree that I may say he has been completely untruthful?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: The problem with the Member for Anson is that when he hears, he does not listen, when he looks, he does not see. Even if he sees and listens, he does not understand. If he does, he does not want to accept. When I said on 22nd January that we did an analysis, we did an analysis.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Did you have it with you? May I have it now?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Why should you have it? I have said, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when we decide to declare a publication ---

Mr Jeyaretnam rose ---

Mr Speaker: Will you let him finish, Mr Jeyaretnam? You keep on interrupting.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: --- as having engaged in Singapore's politics, we will make that analysis available.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister said that he had a very detailed analysis over many years. Does he have it with him now? May we have a look at it in this House now when we are debating this Bill?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I have a clarification from the Minister, please? This is with regard to section 18A(4). He accuses me of not understanding English. I have no mistake here in the interpretation of section 18A(4):

'... such number of copies as he thinks fit, and may require such copies to be marked in such manner as he may direct.' "Marked" means mark in any way to obviously blanco the parts that the Minister does not want. Otherwise, if you have got any other interpretation of this section, let us have it.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I am amazed at the level of comprehension of the Member for Potong Pasir. I do not intend to waste the time of this House on giving him a tutorial in English language.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Let us have it.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: So I suggest that he takes the Member for Whampoa's advice and take up a course in the NUS.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Minister concede that he has been untruthful, please, when he said that he had a very detailed analysis and he cannot produce it now? Will you concede?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: This again is a rather tiresome thing. I have said that I have it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Produce it now.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: He says he wants to see it. There is no reason for me to show him now. If I want to bring it here, if I want to show it to him, who does he want to show it to? To his foreign journalist friends who are trying to do us in? Is that what he wants to do?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I say you do not have it.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Jeyaretnam: I call for a Division, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Ring the Division bells.

The House divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 2, Abstention, 1. Ayes Ayes (cont.) Abbas Abu Amin Ho Kah Leong Abdullah Tarmugi Ho Tat Kin Ahmad Mattar Ibrahim Othman Ang Kok Peng Jayakumar, S. Barker, E.W. Koh Lip Lin Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Lai Tha Chai Chandra Das, S. Lau Ping Sum Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Lee Boon Yang Chew Heng Ching Lee Hsien Loong Chin Harn Tong Lee Yock Suan Ch'ng Jit Koon Leong Horn Kee Chua Sian Chin Lim Boon Heng Dhanabalan, S. Ng Kah Ting Goh Chok Tong Ong Teng Cheong Goh Choon Kang Othman bin Haron Eusofe Ow Chin Hock Wong Kwei Cheong Phua Bah Lee Yatiman Yusof Rajaratnam, S. Yeo Choo Kok Sia Khoon Seong Yeo Ning Hong Sidek bin Saniff Yeo Yoon Chia Tan Cheng Bok Zulkifli bin Mohammed Tan Soo Khoon Tan Tee Yong, Philip Tang Guan Seng Noes Tay Eng Soon Chiam See Tong Teh Cheang Wan Jeyaretnam, J.B. Teo Chong Tee Vasoo, S. Wang Kai Yuen Abstentions Wong Kan Seng Yeoh Ghim Seng

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 Wong Kan Seng].

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