NEWSPAPER AND PRINTING PRESSES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 11.34 am

The Minister for Communications and Information (Dr Yeo Ning Hong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the amendment in this Bill is a simple one. Its objective is to provide for the reproduction of gazetted publications for sale or distribution in Singapore. The amendment demonstrates the Government's positive support for the free flow of information.

The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act was amended in 1986 to gazette foreign publications engaging in Singapore's domestic politics. Since then, four such publications had their circulation in Singapore restricted.

The gazetted publications claim to be champions of the free flow of information. They allege that by restricting their sale in Singapore, we prevent the free flow of information. Asian Wall Street Journal, for example, offered to distribute the newspaper free of charge to its subscribers. The Government agreed, subject to the exclusion of advertisements. Asian Wall Street Journal turned tail. They pleaded "added cost". The Government went further. We offered to meet part of this marginal cost. Asian Wall Street Journal declined. The truth prevailed. Without advertising revenue, the highfaluting principle of free flow of information turned out to be just empty words, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Sir, FEER (Far Eastern Economic Review) claims that it wants to serve all its readers in Singapore; mark the words "to serve all its readers in Singapore". In practice, what did they do? First, they obtained approval for its appointed distributor to distribute the restricted number of copies. Then they refused to circulate in Singapore at all. And as an afterthought, they offered free copies to Singaporeans on visits overseas. This is a cheap proposal, made in the secure knowledge that few people will take it up. It is even cheaper than the Asian Wall Street Journal's offer of free copies to all Singaporean subscribers. The Government is prepared and ready to make FEER the same offer as it did to Asian Wall Street Journal - circulate in Singapore freely, for free but without advertisement. Now, if FEER is genuine in wanting "to serve all its readers" (to use their words), then it should accept the offer.

Sir, these gazetted publications allege that restriction is a ban, that the Government is fearful of their criticisms, that we are fearful of their different points of view. This amendment will nail these lies, once and for all.

The Government has stated categorically that we are not against the free flow of information. But, why should we allow the foreign publications which engage in our domestic politics to enjoy the privilege of sales and advertising revenue from their circulation in Singapore, at our expense, at the expense of our stability?

Circulation of foreign publications in Singapore is a privilege accorded them, granted to them, by the Government on terms. To give an extreme illustration, Pravda and Renmin Ribao: they are still banned in Singapore. We make no apology for it. But mark this, the Western media with their double standards have not protested this particular ban. They are totally silent. Sir, for Communist publications, gazetting would be totally inadequate. These publications and their supporters and their backers - they are willing even to pay people to read their publications because they promote the Communist cause, regardless of cost. But most Western newspapers and journals which meddle in our domestic affairs - they are subversives of a lesser breed. For them, gazetting is more than adequate. Why? It hurts their profits. Their desire for profits is far greater than their wish toengage in Singapore politics or their desire, their so-called desire, to promote the free flow of information. For them, money talks; not principles, not ideologies. Indeed, the editor who is unable to increase his circulation may find himself put in circulation, looking for a job. That is why restricting their circulation and advertising revenue has proved effective.

Sir, the gazetted publications know that how soon the gazetting is lifted depends on how soon they stop engaging in Singapore's domestic politics. See for example, the prompt publication of disputed letters in Time magazine and Asiaweek -almost immediately after they were gazetted. FEER also published Mr James Fu's letter as an advertisement, after they have claimed that the letter was sub-judice and after refusing to publish it in their Letters page. Asian Wall Street Journal, only, has yet to learn to report Singapore objectively and without distortion. They are still slanting their stories on Singapore. They are still tampering with Singapore Government letters. They too will learn, in due course, that each time they do this, they are effectively extending their period of gazetting in Singapore.

Sir, let me now go into the details of the Bill. The revised section 17(2) empowers the Minister to grant approval for persons to reproduce a gazetted foreign newspaper, subject to such conditions as he may impose. One of these conditions will obviously be that advertisements will have to be blanked out in the photocopies.

The revised section 17(3) stipulates an additional condition; namely, that persons reproducing copies for sale or distribution shall not make any profit, but they may recover their costs of production and services.

The revised section 17(5) specifically states that such photocopies will not be an infringement of copyright. The amendment is in the spirit of the Copyright Act which allows photocopies to be made, not for profit, but for personal use and research. The amendment will give all readers in Singapore easy access to the gazetted publications. It applies only to publications declared by the Minister as engaging in domestic politics and are so gazetted. I want to emphasize that the amendment does not affect at all all other publications. Nor does it dilute in any way our commitment to bilateral arrangements with other countries on copyright protection.

The gazetted publications had protested against the restriction in the name of free flow of information. Now, if they are genuine in their protestations, these self-acclaimed champions of the free flow of information should welcome this move, for it is a move that epitomizes the very principle that they preach.

Sir, after this amendment is passed, Singaporean newsagents should subscribe to the FEER, for example, even though it has been gazetted. They can pop over easily to Johore Baru to collect their free copies from FEER. With approval, they can bring it back to Singapore and make reproductions, make photocopies, for sale. In the process, they will render their patrons a great service.

Sir, I would encourage Asian Wall Street Journal to follow the example of FEER, its sister publication. They too can make similar free offers to their subscribers to pick up a free copy when they are on visits outside of Singapore. Then Asian Wall Street Journal can also help in the free flow of information. Other distributors can with approval also obtain copies for reproduction and sale. And if Asian Wall Street Journal and FEER should wish to print copies without advertisements to distribute freely to Singaporean readers, I have no doubt that they also will be given approval.

Sir, let me state once again that foreign publications are allowed by the Singapore Government, (I emphasise "allowed by the Singapore Government") to circulate freely in Singapore provided they do not engage in our domestic politics. There are some 3,700 of them in Singapore. We have no trouble whatsoever with them. Only three are restricted in their circulation and this Amendment will make even these three gazetted publications easily available to all Singaporeans.

Question proposed.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

Sir, when the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act was amended in 1986 to give the Minister the power to declare any newspaper published outside Singapore to be a newspaper engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore, the reasons were made very clear. Why? The main reason lies in the term "declared foreign newspaper." Singapore is a sovereign, independent nation. Our best interests must be protected against those who choose to be mischievious by engaging in our domestic politics for commercial gain.

When the Bill was first set out in 1986, the intention was to give the Minister the powers to restrict the sale of a gazetted foreign newspaper so that a newspaper or magazine will not be able to profit by sensationalising reports or distorting reports on Singapore's domestic affairs. Why restrict and not simply ban the publication? This was to let everyone know that the intention was not to deny the public of information nor that of muzzling the media. What we expect is accurate and responsible reporting. We must not allow others to line their pockets to the detriment of Singapore.

What has happened since the amendment of the Bill in 1986? Four publications have been gazetted out of a total of 3,700 foreign publications. They had their circulation restricted. Of these four, Time magazine which was gazetted in October 1986 has been reinstated and the order was revoked in July 1987. The order to gazette the four was due to the fact that they had published articles which contained error or distortion of facts. These publications also refused to publish letters, unedited, from our Government which sought to present Singapore's version.

Is this fair play? Is it not "intellectual and press freedom" that each be allowed to present its case, so that the readers can best judge for themselves the truth of the case or the accuracy of an article?

Why do we now need to amend the Act to "permit the sale and distribution in Singapore of reproductions of a declared foreign newspaper made with the prior approval of the Minister"? This is because of the decision of the Far Eastern Economic Review to stop its circulation entirely in Singapore. To quote the FEER, it says:

'As the Review is prevented from serving all its Singapore readers, it prefers to serve none.'

This has two serious implications for us. (1) It has broken the spirit or intent of the Act in allowing free flow of information while denying the profit motive. (2) It can now claim a ban on the magazine, albeit a self-imposed ban.

None of the other three publications gazetted earlier reacted in this way. They abided by the law governing our country. They showed respect for our law. Let it be noted by all that it is the FEER that is obstructing the flow of information, not the Government. It is this House, through this Bill, that will make the free-flow of information available.

Is our Government over-reacting or being too sensitive to criticism, some Singaporeans are asking? In an article entitled "A Clash of Values", a veteran Singapore journalist, the ex-Chief Editor of the now defunct Singapore Monitor, Mr Seah Chiang Nee, gave his opinion on the "present state of unhappy relationship between the Singapore Government and a number of Western publications ...". I quote from the article carried in the January 1988 issue of Petir. Mr Seah gave this illustration:

'Several years ago, the Straits Times employed an experienced American Journalist to work in the News Desk to help improve standards. After working briefly, he failed to appear for work one day.

There was no word from him. He was not at home.

One week passed, then two, and three. The newspaper eventually received a letter from him back in the United States saying he was resigning from his job. He said he could not work for a newspaper which carried government propaganda, referring to its role in helping the Government's anti-littering campaign.

The Straits Times had been running messages extolling its readers not to litter. This offended his concept of press freedom and responsibility and he could not, in good conscience, work for such a paper.'

We can see from this the difference in value systems. To us, maintaining a high standard of cleanliness is vital both for good health and the tourism industry. Is there anything wrong if the media works willingly with the Government towards achieving a goal that will benefit society? However, to this journalist, it is an issue of "press freedom and responsibility."

Mr Seah's other views and the exchange of views between him and the Far Eastern Economic Review have been well documented in Hong Kong's South China Morning Post of January 9th and 20th 1988, and summarised in the Straits Times article of 23rd January 1988. This article carried the caption "heart-transplant journalist returns editor's donation." The "heart-transplant journalist" is Mr Seah, and the editor referred to is Mr Derek Davies, Editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review.

What does this episode tell us? It reminds me of the double standards that is sometimes applied to us. We are often accused of being too sensitive to criticism and over-reacting to minor criticisms. Now in this exchange we can see how personal a level differing views can sink into. The Straits Times has quoted Mr Derek Davies as saying, "I'm very glad that Mr Seah has a new heart. But I don't know how he could return me the $500 unless he gave me a piece of his heart."

In today's Straits Times Forum page, there is a letter from Mr Derek Davies explaining what he was quoted to have said. Mr Davies has been accorded the right to reply by the Straits Times. The FEER did not accord the Singapore Government the same courtesy. Furthermore, without checking with the Straits Times - this is because several of my colleagues and myself have just returned from the AIPO conference for this morning's sitting - I am quite confident that Mr Davies' reply has been printed unedited. This reinforces my view that double standards do exist.

Furthermore, Sir, I am deeply saddened by the closing remark of this morning's letter which smacks of sarcasm. He now says that his "sole concern is that, after the Australian surgery, Mr Seah's new organ is in the right place." I wonder where else does he expect the heart to be. Perhaps the underlying root problem may indeed be, as perceived by Mr Seah, "a clash of values." If this is the case, how can we resolve this? In the article, Mr Seah also mentions about the complaint of the foreign press "about difficulties in persuading Singaporean officials to talk to the international press, which makes it difficult for them to get a balanced story." Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on these two issues.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in summary, I support this amendment because the amendment is consistent with the original intent of the Act. Government has ensured through this amendment that Singapore will remain an Information Centre. Singaporeans, the business community, and expatriates will continue to have access to information. This amendment also serves to remind those who try to circumvent our laws passed in this House that loopholes in the law will be sealed. Consistency and the spirit and intent of the law will always reign supreme.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): I am much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me this chance to join in the debate.

As I sit there and listen to the Minister and to the Chairman of the GPC, I am sure such similar speeches will follow. I do not know whether we are debating on the Amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Press Act or this session is going to be a continuous attack on the FEER and Mr Derek Davies.

An hon. Member: You are going to defend him?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Unfortunately, I am not going to defend the FEER or Mr Derek Davies. But it is unfortunate in the sense that this seems to be the practice of the House in the four walls of this Chamber - we attack this or that person and that poor fellow has got no chance of reply.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister has said that some foreign publications, I believe, - I have got the notes here - are subversives of a lesser breed. Maybe I think we should get an explanation from him. Of course, understandably, if they are Communist publications, then they are subversive. But I do not know how the Asian Wall Street Journal, or the Time, or the Newsweek, or the Far Eastern Economic Review could in any way be said to be subversive. Perhaps the Minister could explain to us.

Sir, the issue in this debate, like the earlier amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, is really the freedom of the Press, the free flow of information. According to the Minister, the amendments would facilitate information flow, but I do not agree. If the Government is really sincere in wanting to facilitate the free flow of information by this amendment, then why is there the necessity to include this new section 17(2)? This relevant section reads:

'The Minister ... may refuse to grant or revoke such approval without assigning any reason.'

This is my main quarrel with the amendment. The Opposition has enough experience to know in Singapore that the matters that really count, the news that are politically hurtful to the PAP which by themselves do not contravene any defamatory or criminal laws, will be kept away as much as possible from the eyes of the public. Knowing the record of this Government, the Opposition will naturally be skeptical and will question the necessity of the inclusion of this new section 17(2). People will, of course, be unhappy if a decision has been made against them and no reason is forthcoming. We know, of course, when a decision is made by the Minister in regard to news, if they come from other countries than Singapore, like Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, South Korea, then reproduction of those news will most likely be forthcoming. But what about news which are hurtful and damaging to this Government? Will they be forthcoming? I do not think so. The three foreign magazines and one newspaper have been gazetted because they published news that were alleged to have been involved in local politics. The Government has restricted their sale drastically by cutting down their circulation because they were said to be involved in local domestic affairs.

The Government, having done that, now attempts to say, "We are not restricting free flow of information." By this act of cutting down the sales from over 9,000 copies in the case of the Far Eastern Economic Review to 500 copies is, of course, an attempt to restrict free flow of information. If restricting drastically the circulation of a magazine is not an act to curb free flow of information, I do not know what is. The less number of persons who have access to news is self-evident that information flows less freely. How can information flow freely if certain news are not readily available? I say that news can never be readily available as long as the Minister has the last say in whether or not to approve the reproduction of copies of gazetted newspapers.

Section 17(2) is bad law. This new section gives the Minister the right not to approve or revoke such approval without assigning any reason. This infringes the basic democratic principle of accountability. The Minister need not account to anyone when he makes a decision under that section. He is not required to give reasons. He just says, "No. That's it. You cannot have the approval." Where is the fairness? Where is the justice?

Dr Augustine Tan: Point of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Are you giving way?

Dr Augustine Tan: One question.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Please, you can speak after I have finished.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Tan, resume your seat.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am only one amongst you. Please have some fairness. If you are interrupted, somebody else can always back you up. I have no back-up.

Once the Minister has not given reason, who is to say that he has not abused his powers?

Dr Augustine Tan: Are you seeking a licence?

Mr Chiam See Tong: This particular section also involves another important issue, ie, the credibility of this Government. Can the people of Singapore believe the Government any more? If the Government is sincere in wanting really to facilitate the free flow of information, why is it that it dare not give reasons when it refuses permission to make reproductions of gazetted newspapers? The best way the Government can make the public believe its action is by giving explanations. When the Government refuses to explain its action, people will surely be tempted to say the Government has something to hide. On the other hand, if the Government has nothing to hide, why is there the fear to explain?

If the Government is really genuine about its intentions, I would suggest that we amend this new section 17(2). I propose that we appoint an independent committee comprising professional people, to give it powers to have a final say in whether or not approval may be refused or such approval, having been given, should be revoked. It is not enough for the Minister to tell this House that the intention of the Bill is to facilitate free flow of information. That intention must manifestly be seen, and there is no better manifestation of that intention than to take the powers away from the Minister and vest them in an independent committee to decide whether approval should or should not be refused or an approval be revoked.

Under the new section 17(2) the Minister may grant his approval subject to certain conditions. May I perhaps ask the Minister to give us an idea of some of the conditions he has in mind. I would imagine one of the conditions would probably be to limit the number of copies since those copies will be exempted from the provisions of the Copyright Act.

One of the complaints of the Government is that when western journalists tend to spread western liberal ideas in Singapore, according to the Government, these ideas are not suited to Singapore's conditions. Perhaps the younger PAP Members have to be reminded that it was the old guards of the PAP, prior to 1959, who were the greatest advocates of liberal ideas. And now there is a complete turnaround of the situation. I am glad the Prime Minister is here and I would like to quote him.

The Prime Minister: On a point of order.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, it is a point of order.

The Prime Minister: He is making an assertion which is manifestly untrue because if he looks at the records of this Assembly before it became a Parliament in 1959, he will see that I supported the ISA and I made no bones about it. I was no free liberal democrat after the western fashion of the word. I knew what Singapore had to face and I spelt out exactly what we would do. He is stating an untruth. The debate took place in April 1958. Look it up.

Mr Chiam See Tong: From what I have read, the Prime Minister, towards 1958, in fact, as he has said, supported the Emergency Regulations. Those days they were called the Emergency Regulations. But before 1958, say, 1957 down, from 1955-57, what was your position in regard to the Emergency Regulations?

The Prime Minister: In 1955, we had never faced the realities of the Communist challenge. In 1957 or 1958, after 2-3 tumultuous years, we had the courage to change our stand in this House and made it quite clear that we would never revoke it as long as it was necessary either in Malaya or in Singapore.

Mr Chiam See Tong: If my source is wrong, then the Prime Minister should have banned this book long ago. It is called "Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore" by T.J.S. George. [Laughter]. There is nothing to laugh. If the Prime Minister feels that Mr George has been writing a lot of untruths about him then -

The Prime Minister: Do I have the support of the Member every time somebody utters an untruth that I should ban it because then we can do without the gazetting? We can just ban all these publications.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I will quote Mr George from page 111:

'Almost any speech he made in the Assembly [Mr Prime Minister, that is referring to you] between 1955 and 1959 could go straight into the liberal democrat's bedside bookshelf.'

You remember reading that, of course.

The Prime Minister: I do not read Mr George.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Since you have touched on the Internal Security Act, I will quote him on this point unless, of course, you deny it:

'Examining how governments could fall all too easily into the habit of suppressing the liberty of the individual, Lee said:

"First the conscience is attacked by a sense of guilt. You attack only those whom your Special Branch can definitely say are communists. They have no proof except that X told Z who told Alpha who told Beta who told the Special Branch. Then you attack those whom your Special Branch say are actively sympathising with and helping the communists, although they are not communists themselves. Then you attack those whom your Special Branch say, although they are not communists or fellow travellers, yet, by their intransigent opposition to any collaboration with colonialism, they encourage the spirit of revolt and weaken constituted authority and thereby, according to the Special Branch, they are aiding the communists. Then finally, since you have gone that far, you attack all those who oppose you.

"... All you have to do is to dissolve organisations and societies and banish or detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil and quiet on the surface. Then an intimidated press - and some sections of the press here do not need intimidation because they have friendly owners - the press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done. Or if these things are referred to again, they are conveniently distorted, and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict."'

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Chiam, are you going to read the whole book?

Mr Chiam See Tong: This is a follow-up from a point which the Prime Minister brought up. I did not intend to read this first half but since he has brought it up I read it. I intend only to go to the second part which is relevant to our debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I can see you are straying very far away from the contents of the Bill. Could you be relevant, please?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I will continue, Mr Deputy Speaker:

'"... But if we say we believe in democracy, if we say that the fabric of a democratic society is one which allows the free play of ideas, which avoids revolution by violence because revolution by peaceful methods of persuasion is allowed, then in the name of all the gods we have in this country, give that free play a chance to work within the constitutional framework."'

Mr Prime Minister, I support every word you said here. I am with you.

An hon. Member: He didn't say it. It is George.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Unless he is denying it. No man, I think not even in the English Parliament, can put it as beautifully as you can, Mr Prime Minister, and I really believe it. I think there is no more beautiful way of putting a parliamentary democrat's position than this. Nobody else could have crafted this as well as the Prime Minister of Singapore.

But if we are really to believe that by peaceful methods of persuasion we are going to be allowed to shape our society, then why are we in this House today trying to curb the circulation of (we have curbed the circulation of four, but now remaining three) foreign newspapers?

An hon. Member: Make more copies available.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, unless of course the Government is saying that the foreign press indulges in subversive activities, and if it can be proven that they are subversive to Singapore, I will support the Government. Surely I will support it. But as I can see, their only sin is that now the Government says they are trying to purvey Western liberal type of ideas in Singapore and we must have Asian ideas. But even this stand of the Government is contradictory. On the one hand, you want to accept a lot of their technology, methods of organization, their creativity, their innovativeness and also, in fact, we have got their political system, ie, the democratic system, here. So on the one hand, we want all these things to come to Singapore, to make Singapore a better place and to go on to the next big step of our development. But on the other hand, the Government says that we must encourage only Asian ideas. Unless the Government can convince me that they can reconcile these two aspects, I will certainly not support this kind of a Bill. I say that unless you can prove to me that the Western press is, in fact, not practising peaceful persuasion, the words of the Prime Minister, -

The Prime Minister: Can I ask the Member whether he believes the Western correspondent has got the right to participate in our politics? Is it his contention? If so, will he cite me the authority, any convention that we have signed, any declaration in the UN that we have supported to say that the Western correspondent can write and sell his publication in Singapore? It is as simple as that. He is not a participant - that is the clear-cut position of this Government - neither is the Soviet nor the Chinese nor any foreigner, not even our Asean neighbours. They stay out of our politics.

Mr Chiam See Tong: This is the view of the Government that these foreign publications have participated in the -

The Prime Minister: I have asked him, as a matter of law: are they participants in our domestic debate?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Prime Minister, I do not know whether the Government intends to bring any of these matters to the court to decide.

The Prime Minister: It is simple. If they are entitled to participate, the Member can bring us to the courts and declare this ultra vires the Constitution.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Is the Prime Minister saying that they are purely participating in local domestic affairs and not, in fact, putting up certain views by peaceful methods? Unless, of course, the Prime Minister is saying that these publications are, in fact, subversive.

The Prime Minister: I did not say that. No such thing. Mr Deputy Speaker, the proposition is a very simple one.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, would you allow the Prime Minister to clarify?

The Prime Minister: The proposition is a simple one. We do not have to prove.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have in this House, whenever the Prime Minister is here -

The Prime Minister: "He does not put up with frivolity."

Mr Chiam See Tong: - he can stand up any time and just interject another speaker. I think nobody else has this privilege.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, on the occasions the Prime Minister has interjected, I have noted that you have given way to the Prime Minister. If you are giving way, the Prime Minister then has the Floor.

Mr Chiam See Tong: No. If we are just adopting Standing Orders and taking the norms of debate, then I think the Prime Minister, in the first place, should ask Deputy Speaker whether or not I am giving way. I think this is normal. I do not think he did ask your permission.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes. But I have noted you have given way.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes. But in any event, I have come to the end of my speech. What I am going to say is that Singapore, if it is going to really progress, let us have, as the Prime Minister said, the peaceful methods of persuasion. And if we really want it, let us have it.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act was debated in Parliament in 1986, one of the key principles that is enshrined in the Bill is the free flow of information. After a publication is deemed by the Government to have engaged in domestic politics, its circulation will be drastically reduced when it is gazetted as a declared publication. However, even though its circulation has been reduced, for those who like to have access to the publication for general interest or for research, they can still refer to the copies in the library. Thus, as long as there are sufficient copies in circulation, free flow of information is preserved, contrary to what the Member for Potong Pasir has asserted.

Of the four publications gazetted so far, three of them continue to supply the maximum number of copies allowed to their customers. It is obvious that circulation revenue of these copies would hardly cover the expenses of printing and circulating these copies. Yet Time magazine, Asian Wall Street Journal and Asiaweek elect to do so. They do so perhaps to maintain links with their readership while waiting for the eventual removal of the restrictions, as in the case of Time Magazine. Perhaps by doing so, they intend to uphold another principle, that is, to continue to serve their readership. If that were the case, the motive is an honourable one. I for one would give them the benefit of the doubt. Of course, Asian Wall Street Journal carried that principle a little bit too far when it offered its papers for free to Singaporeans provided they were able to maintain their circulation. When the Government agreed to its proposal with the condition that all advertisements be removed, it became very clear that Asian Wall Street Journal's motive was driven more by the need to protect the bottom line than by the principle to serve its readers.

I for one was disappointed by the FEER when it decided to stop circulation entirely in Singapore. Its editorial proclaimed that it was "banned". We know, by any definition of the word, one cannot say that the magazine has been banned in Singapore. Why would FEER do this? It is clear that financially the additional 500 copies make no difference one way or the other to the fortune of FEER. Either way the 5% advertisement discount is inevitable, once the restriction order took effect. Perhaps through this action, FEER would like to show the world that it is a magazine of principle, that it is a magazine of character. But to stop circulation entirely is to prevent the access of information. To stop circulation entirely is to stop serving its readers, many of whom might have been subscribers for many, many years. Unilaterally, FEER has caused the cessation of its circulation in Singapore. To project itself as a magazine of principle, I submit, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, FEER has violated a greater principle of service and freedom of information as a journalistic publication.

So we can conclude that FEER may not be a magazine that upholds service to its readers as an important principle. But how about the principle of fair and impartial editorship? FEER refused to publish the latest letter from James Fu claiming that the letter was sub judice. But for HK$30,000-odd, they swallowed their pride and principle. For FEER, the publication of the advertisement has not been a cost-free one, just as a non-publication or a publication as a letter would not have been cost-free. FEER must have realized that. What they did is viewed with bad taste in the journalist circle. They quickly offered to donate the money to charity, in this case the Singapore Kidney Foundation, in a belated attempt to repair the damages. Clearly, it is on flimsy ground for, if one stands on sound principles, there is no need to shift.

Is FEER a magazine of character? Now, since a publication is an inanimate object, its moral must reflect those of the man behind its editorial policies. So I shall rephrase my question: is the editor of FEER a man of character? I do not know the man personally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, but one learns a lot from the following incident which was reported in the newspapers. A few years ago the editor of the FEER donated HK$500 to help a heart transplant patient who was a fellow journalist. When this journalist recently expressed a viewpoint different from the editor's, the editor said that he might now begin to regret that particular act of charity. Upon learning this, the journalist returned the HK$500. This editor's reaction, as quoted in the South China Morning Post, was, "I don't know how he [meaning the heart transplant patient] could return me the $500 unless he gave me a piece of his heart." The good editor considered that only by returning a piece of the heart could the journalist repay his $500.

An hon. Member: Shylock.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Many of us have read Shakespeare. Whenever I read the Merchant of Venice during my student days, I always loathed Shylock for the way he extracted repayment. I was young then. I consoled myself that, despicable though he is, Shylock is only a figment of imagina- tion. I am now wiser. So I would leave my fellow hon. Members to conclude in response to my earlier question. I can only say that next time when this man extends his hand to help, watch out. As the magazine reflects the man behind it, Singaporeans should read FEER in future with a new understanding, a new insight. Bear in mind the man behind those words. An additional 500 copies is a small number; not to circulate these does not hurt FEER any further than what it is now. However, by doing so, FEER completely deprives Singaporeans of the freedom to have access to the magazine. This is truly a regrettable act.

In making the copying of a declared magazine by approval of the Minister free from the Copyright Act, this amendment will allow Singaporeans access to declared magazine that enforces a self-imposed ban. This amendment will ensure that free flow of information will continue to be practised in Singapore.

Let me conclude by giving my own view on the concept of copyright. There are persons who hold the opinion that copyright is a basic right. Since it is composed of two words, "copy" and "right", so it must be a right. To take away a basic right seems like a very drastic measure. In response, I will ask this question: is copyright a basic right, like a birth-right, or is it a privilege? There are countries in this world where there are no comprehensive copyright laws. So clearly copyright is not a fundamental right. In my opinion, it is a privilege accorded by a country to protect the authors and the artists of their creative work. Like all privileges, it is something the host gives to the honoured guests, in particulars foreign guests. For foreign publications that dabble in Singapore's internal politics, they have forfeited their honoured guest status. Thus it is only logical that such privileges be withdrawn from them. Hence, I consider this amendment does not violate the fundamental principle of copyright.

One final remark, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, regarding the operational aspect of this Bill. New section 17 (3) of this Bill stipulates that those who reproduce copies for circulations with the approval of the Minister cannot do it for profit. I would like to find out from the Minister how the Government proposes to monitor such policies.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this amendment.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, I want to thank the two Members of Parliament for their support of the Bill.

The Member for Fengshan raised two points that require a reply. First, he asked about the difficulty expressed by the foreign journalists themselves, the difficulty in gaining easy access to civil servants and Ministers and therefore they had greater difficulty in doing their jobs. Sir, Ministers and civil servants are not paid to do the job of foreign journalists. They have to go around and sniff out the information, the news, that they want. Notwithstanding that, I think it must be obvious that the Prime Minister does give interviews to foreign correspondents fairly regularly. One can remember the article in Newsweek sometime back, and very recently that in another Japanese newspaper, Ministers have often, whenever appropriate, spoken to foreign correspondents. They have even gone to the extent of addressing the Foreign Correspondents' Association in Singapore. But I emphasise again, it is not the job of civil servants to be the assistants of foreign correspondents to help them in their job, to make it easy to get information.

The Member for Fengshan also touched upon the question of values. Sir, this is not the appropriate forum to go into the question of values. The nub of the problem that the NPPA Amendment seeks to address is really very simple. The foreign publications are concerned with increasing their circulation. It is money that they are talking about. We are concerned with our stability, with the future of Singapore. That is what the whole Bill is all about.

Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir went round and round. I just wondered whether he supports the Bill, or he does not. Does he or does he not support the free flow ofinformation? Because he seems very confused. He does not understand how this Bill will make it possible for all Singa- poreans to have easy access to even the gazetted publications. Where is the muzzling of the foreign press? Because they are going to be able to read it. Everybody in Singapore who wants to read the FEER after the Bill has been passed will be able to read it. The Member is obviously trying to give us what he thinks should be a correct form of words or the drafting of the legislation. Sir, the Member during the budget debate gave us an exposition on the law of libel. I am sure he must have thought that it was a brilliant exposition. However, two days later he came back to this House to apologize to the Speaker and Members of the House. We will have to treat his exposition of legal draftsmanship with the same degree of seriousness.

Sir, if the Member is familiar with the law of Singapore, he will know that in the drafting of laws this sort of phraseology is used routinely. The purpose is to ensure flexibility so that every time there is a minor change we do not have to come back to this House in order to accommodate that change.

Mr Chiam See Tong rose -

Dr Yeo Ning Hong remained standing.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Yeo.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong resumed his seat.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to clarify one point with the Minister because he has just made a most astounding statement. He says that that piece of legislation is normal, always done that way. Are you saying that does not mean what it says, but it is just done in that way and it is always done that way? Surely a legislation must mean exactly what it means. It is not for flexibility or for convenience or whatever reasons you may give.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are seeing a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. A moment ago the Member for Potong Pasir complained about the Prime Minister not addressing the Deputy Speaker to seek permission, and here we have the Member for Potong Pasir doing exactly the same thing. I think next time before he becomes critical of others, he should take a look at himself. Maybe we should arrange for him to have a mirror in this House.

Sir, let us get back to basics. If the Member's Party, the SDP, wishes to apply for a permit to reproduce the FEER, the Asian Wall Street Journal, and all the other gazetted publications, I assure him he will get it. Does he want to do that? My assurance is, he can have it. In fact, I have given the assurance that if the Asian Wall Street Journal and FEER want to print their magazines in Singapore and circulate freely without charge, but without advertisements, I shall arrange for them to be given the approval.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, he has -

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Yeo, are you giving way?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask that you advise the Member for Potong Pasir not to interrupt.

Mr Deputy Speaker: All right. Continue with your speech.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, the Member talks about foreign publications indulging in persuasion. Sir, we are not talking about persuasion. We are talking about a systematic undermining of key institutions in Singapore, undermining the credibility of the Government, undermining the credibillity of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, undermining the credibility of the Prime Minister. We are not talking about different points of view.

Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir and Members of this House must surely know that if any Singaporean were to comment on the domestic politics of, say, for example, our Asean neighbours, they are not going to be lightly received. They do not even have to be reported in the local papers in these countries. If any Singaporean, including the Member for Potong Pasir, were to engage himself in the domestic politics of our Asean neighbours, there is going to be a mighty row. It is obvious that the domestic politics of a country remains the province of its citizens and its government.

Sir, the Member talks about the phraseology in the Bill leading to the Minister not being accountable to anyone. I do not think he understands at all how the mechanism works. The Minister is accountable to Parliament. That is why we are here answering questions, debating. The Member for Potong Pasir can always ask questions anytime. The trouble is that when he asks a question, he does not even turn up for the answer. I am sure he must have left word with the Member for Chong Boon. It is a pity the Member for Chong Boon is not here, otherwise we will ask him whether there is some special arrangement to ask questions on his behalf. Sir, obviously, like Pontius Pilate, the Member for Potong Pasir asks questions without really wanting to hear the answers.

Sir, I ask the Member for Potong Pasir categorically: does he or does he not support the free flow of information?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Of course.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: He does. Thank you. Does he or does he not support the allegations of the FEER? [ Mr Chiam See Tong interrupted.] Does he or does he not support the Asiaweek magazine when it tampered with the Government's letter without telling the writer and publishing it as if it were a letter from the Government official? Does he support that? [ Mr Chiam See Tong interrupted.] You support it. Sir, does he or does he not support the Asian Wall Street Journal refusing to publish a Government letter claiming falsely that the letter was defamatory? Does he support all this?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Why not? I am not a defendant of the FEER.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: You are not a defendant of the FEER. You are not a defendant of any thing because you do not believe in anything at all. You have got no point of view other than being critical of the Government.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I propose something.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: I have attempted to make sense out of the speech that you are making and all I have is six to seven isolated points.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Are you going to amend the -

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have just given the Member my views and he has obviously not heard. I am treating the Member for Potong Pasir's exposition of draftsmanship with exactly the same amount of seriousness as I did his exposition on libel law.

Mr Chiam See Tong: We want an independent committee. Do you agree to that?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is no necessity because the law is clear. If the Member had been familiar with the laws of Singapore he would know that this is the standard phraseology used under a variety of circumstances.

Sir, I now come to another point which the Member has raised. He talks about the need for us to follow the West. He believes that everything that the West does is good.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Not me. Your leader.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: You were expounding that particular point of view a moment ago. Sir, we are looking at societies that have, among their statistics, some of the highest incidence of murder, of mugging, of child abuse, of divorce, of family breakdowns, and the Member for Potong Pasir wants us - he may want to practise a "monkey see, monkey do" approach to doing things. But this is not the way we do things in Singapore.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I did not say that.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: This is not the way we do things in Singapore. Sir, we examine carefully cause and effect and before we adopt anything that the West does, we look at it very closely. The Member talks about progress in science and technology and equates it with all this behaviour that the Western media practises. I do not think there is any evidence to support that. Science and technology is not the monopoly of the West. The Japanese are fast catching up and in many areas have overtaken the Western countries, and they do it with a totally different culture, with a totally different approach to life. Very unwise for the Member to believe that a "monkey see, monkey do" approach will solve all the problems of Singapore.

Sir, the Member for Bukit Timah raised two points which I would like to touch upon briefly. He asked if the amendment is appropriate as far as the Copyright Act is concerned. Sir, yes, the amendment is in accordance with our Copyright Act which was passed late last year. Sir, this amendment, as I emphasised a moment ago, affects only gazetted publications those declared by the Minister to be engaging in the politics of Singapore. It does not - I emphasize, it does not - affect at all all other publications. It is within the spirit of the law and, as I said earlier on and I repeat, it does not in any way diminish or dilute our commitment to bilateral arrangements for copyright protection.

The Member for Bukit Timah also asked about the enforcement of the Act. Sir, the enforcement of the Act will be as with the enforcement of all other Acts. In this particular case, the conditions will be laid down. They will be given to the applicant. They will know what the conditions are. There will be a very hefty penalty which will act as a deterrent. I have no doubt that the deterrent will be sufficiently effective in ensuring that there will be no abuse of this particular piece of legislation.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Yeo Ning Hong].

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

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting now and will take the Chair again at 2.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.48 pm until 2.00 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.00 pm