RESTRICTION ON CIRCULATION OF TIME AND ASIAN WALL STREET JOURNAL (Effects)

Mr Yeo Choo Kok asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) whether the Government has received complaints, direct or indirect, from financial or business circles that their operations are hampered by the Government's restriction on the Asian Wall Street Journal; (b) if so, how badly these operations are hampered and what steps have been taken by the Government to resolve the problem; (c) whether the Government's action against the AWSJ has marred Singapore's image internationally; and (d) whether Singapore's restriction on the circulation of TIME and the AWSJ will affect our status as an international printing and publishing centre; and (e) whether the dispute over the restriction on the AWSJ is having any repercussions on Singapore's relations with the United States Government.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has not received any complaints from financial or business circles in Singapore that their operations have been hampered by the Government's restriction of the Asian Wall Street Journal. Over the past month, I have on different occasions met many business executives, including foreign bankers. None mentioned any difficulty resulting from the Asian Wall Street Journal restriction.

Nevertheless, the Asian Wall Street Journal has repeatedly claimed that it continues to hear from leading businesses in Singapore that they are greatly inconvenienced by the lack of access to the Journal. The Government has therefore decided to allow the Journal unlimited circulation in Singapore, provided all the advertising spaces are left blank and the newspaper is distributed free of charge. The offer is still open, although the Journal has turned it down. That the Journal refused, even when the Government offered to help pay for the incremental costs of producing an advertisement-free edition, clearly demonstrates their interest in advertising revenue and not in the free flow of information.

Sir, the Government's action to insist on our right to reply to correct snide and malicious misreporting, far from marring our international reputation, has established our reputation for firmness in dealing with the foreign press. It has proved our willingness to engage them in public debate when they make spurious attacks on our integrity. It demonstrates the hypocrisy of their pose as high-minded champions of the freedom of expression.

The restriction on circulation of the Journal has no effect whatsoever on our position as a printing and publishing centre. The same factors which make Singapore attractive to other foreign investors, such as efficient telecommunications, comprehensive sea and air transport services, competitive costs and a good business environment, help attract hard-headed printers and publishers to Singapore. I am informed that the industry grew by 6% last year, while the domestic exports of publications grew by a phenomenal 37% last year, as reported by Business Times on 24th February. Sir, the Journal continues to be printed in Singapore, notwithstanding its own solemn warnings to "any business that wants to risk locating in Singapore". This fact speaks for itself.

Sir, the final part of the Question concerns matters under the purview of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I shall ask the Minister to reply.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Speaker, Sir, on 11th February 1987, a US State Department spokesman expressed regret over Singapore's restriction of the Asian Wall Street Journal. Singapore protested at this unprecedented interference in its internal affairs. The State Department responded that it did not take sides in the particulars of the case. The exchange of notes has been reported in the press.

In view of the State Department reply on 21st February 1987, the Singapore Government delivered a further note to the United States requesting the State Department to explain how such impartiality is consistent with the regret expressed by its spokesman and on what basis it has concluded that the Singapore Government action is regrettable.

The US Government replied on 10th March 1987. It stated that its stand on this matter is consistent with its "commitment to the principles of a free and unrestricted press in American usage", meaning that "the press is free to publish or not publish what it chooses, however irresponsible or biased its actions may be".

The Singapore Government does not consider this a satisfactory explanation. Singapore is not the United States and is not bound by the US ideals of press freedom. In Singapore, when reporting has been left to the marketplace of ideas, it has from time to time led to civil commotion, riots and mayhem. We have inherited the British colonial system and have always had the right of reply. Just as we do not presume to pass judgment on US government press relations, neither do they have the right to comment publicly on Singapore Government press policies.

The Singapore Government values our strong and mature relationship with the US. That is why we are making it quite clear that we do not accept that the American usage can be imposed on Singapore.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has therefore delivered a third note to the State Department to place our position beyond doubt. I am circulating all the exchange of notes (Cols. 779 - 786) between the MFA and the US, including the MFA note of 21st February, the State Department reply of 10th March, and MFA's further rejoinder for the information of Members. notes - AIDE MEMOIRE (Cols. 779 - 786)

Mr Yeo Choo Kok (Delta): Sir, this question is for the Minister for Communications and Information. Has the Time magazine apologized to the people and the Government of Singapore? Have they appealed against the continued restriction on its circulation? And the second question is: what is the present position or the latest development of the AWSJ affair?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Mr Speaker, Sir, TIME magazine has published the letter in full, the letter which led to the restriction in the first instance. They have also written to the Ministry in December to ask for a review of the decision to restrict the circulation. This matter will be considered at the appropriate time.

As for the Asian Wall Street Journal, there is no reason or necessity to review the matter at the moment.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, could I ask a supplementary question which either Minister can reply? Is the Minister surprised that the Voice of America, an organ created by the US government to counter Communist propaganda world wide, has been used to cast critical views on a non-Communist government such as the Singapore Government which is, in fact, an ally of the US in the free world?

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, we were surprised. We were aggrieved. And we have registered our views on the matter with the Voice of America. We were surprised that the Voice of America had the same major reaction to the issue, that they were not concerned with the particulars of the issue. As I said, we have registered our concern. We have given them the details and I hope that they are wiser now.

Mr Chng Hee Kok (Radin Mas): Sir, a supplementary question for the Minister for Communications and Information. How will the Minister rate the extent of the coverage of the Government's response and the Government's position in the international as well as the US press? Was the coverage good or was it poor?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Mr Speaker, Sir, it must be obvious that when the reporting is made in other countries, the same sort of coverage that we have seen in Singapore cannot be expected, simply because the journalists in Western countries have developed their own standards of what is considered as freedom of the press. My view is that the reporting in other countries has been extremely biased. But we have ensured that we put our points of view across in the same papers that have published the biased reports.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Sir, has the Minister considered taking advertising space in the major US papers like the Wall Street Journal, for example, to explain our position?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Mr Speaker, Sir, in some of the cases, replies from the Singapore Govenrment have already been published.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra): Sir, a supplementary question for the Minister for Communications and Information. In view of the fact that a publication like the Asian Wall Street Journal no doubt enjoys the controversy that has been created, and I am of the opinion that they believe that the ensuing publicity would benefit their circulation when the problem is finally resolved and when restrictions are removed, would the Minister consider a suggestion that if and when the problem is resolved and when he decides to lift the present restrictions, would he confine its circulation to a figure not greater than what it was when the restrictions were first imposed?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Mr Speaker, Sir, at the moment, there is no intention whatsoever to review the decision.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, I have two supplementary questions. The amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act was to prevent foreign papers from meddling in our politics. As I had noted, the article published in the Asian Wall Street Journal was in relation to Sesdaq. How does the Minister say that this is meddling in the internal politics of Singapore?

The other question I want to ask is something which I really do not understand. The whole purpose of the amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act is to prevent the circulation of articles which may be prejudicial to Singapore and yet the Minister says that the Wall Street Journal can continue to circulate.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, I thought you said you had two questions to ask.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes.

Mr Speaker: I am hearing nothing but a speech.

Mr Chiam See Tong: All right, Sir. How does the Minister reconcile this? On the one hand, the Act is to prevent a newspaper from circulating matters which are purported to be meddling in the affairs of the politics of Singapore and, on the other hand, he allows this newspaper to be circulated if it were to be given away free of charge.

I think I have got a third question.

Mr Speaker: You said two questions. Will you please sit down and let the Minister answer first?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I find it difficult to understand the Member for Potong Pasir. When an article by an international newspaper undermines one of our key institutions and makes serious allegations about the Government and its integrity, I find it difficult to understand the Member when he says that it is not meddling in the politics of Singapore.

Secondly, the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act was amended not to prevent articles from being made available in Singapore but to permit the Government to impose restriction as and when it is necessary.

Mr Chiam See Tong: The Minister says that the article undermines the integrity of the Government.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, do ask your supplementary question.

Mr Chiam See Tong: All right, I will come to the question.

Mr Speaker: Or I have to give you a lesson on how to ask supplementary questions.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Does the Minister agree that that article was a report or a reflection of opinions that that reporter obtained from business circles in Singapore?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the article can report anybody's views. What is important, what is at issue, is that the Journal refused to publish the Singapore Government's point of view. The Member for Potong Pasir may not have read the papers. If he had, he would have remembered that three letters from three major financial institutions in Singapore, namely, the Stock Exchange of Singapore, the Association of Banks of Singapore and the Association of Merchant Bankers in Singapore, wrote to the Asian Wall Street Journal disclaiming that the article was reflecting concerns of these three organizations. The Asian Wall Street Journal chose to suppress those letters by not publishing them.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Does the Minister accept that a newspaper's internal policy is to choose which article to publish and which article not to publish? Does he accept that as an acceptable practice in the business of printing newspapers?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer was given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his earlier answer. But let me reiterate it. No, they can practise whatever policies they like outside of Singapore. If they choose to take up the privilege that we have extended to them to make money in Singapore, to circulate in Singapore, then we uphold our right to reply. And even the Foreign Correspondents' Association in Singapore accepts that fundamental right to reply and they have upheld that right of reply.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Does this practice apply to local papers? If individual citizens in Singapore insist on a right of reply in respect of certain articles written which they feel is unfair, can individual citizens of Singapore, for example, insist on a right of reply from the Straits Times or the Lianhe Zaobao?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Mr Speaker, Sir, these are two separate issues altogether. We are talking about the Government's dealing with the newspaper. And if any foreign papers wish to take up that privilege that is extended to them by the Government, these are the rules by which they have to play. If the Member for Potong Pasir wants to extend any privilege to any newspaper, he can have his own rules with the newspaper.

Mr Ng Kah Ting rose -

Mr Chiam See Tong: Last question. I think I have a right to ---

Mr Speaker: No. Mr Ng stood up first.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much. There has got to be an end. And I ask for Question No. 7 to be answered.