NEWSPAPER AND PRINTING PRESSES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Sir, the Bill seeks to amend the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act to require an offshore newspaper to apply for an annually renewable permit if its circulation in Singapore is 300 copies or more per issue. An offshore newspaper is defined as a newspaper published outside Singapore at intervals not exceeding one week and contains news, intelligence, reports of occurrences, observations or comments, pertaining to the politics and current affairs of any country in South-East Asia.

Sir, the purpose of this amendment is to correct an anomaly in the treatment of newspapers which are published locally and those which are published outside Singapore which have sizeable circulations in Singapore.

Currently, local newspapers, which include those which are published and printed in Malaysia, are required to apply for a newspaper permit under the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act. But, on the other hand, newspapers which are published and printed outside Singapore are circulating in Singapore without permit requirements. In recent years, some foreign newspapers have built up sizeable circulations in Singapore. This rise in circulation may have given some foreign publications the impression that they have the right to circulate in Singapore. And it may also have led some of them to the assumption that they must play the same role that they play in their home markets; in other words, of being part and parcel of the political process, of taking sides and influencing events. This Bill serves to reinforce the Government's consistent position that it is a privilege, and not a right, for foreign newspapers to circulate in Singapore. They do so as foreign observers of the local scene and should not interfere in the domestic politics of Singapore.

Sir, the new section 15A, subsection 4, provides that the permit granted shall be for one year from the date of issue and may be renewed for further periods not exceeding 12 months. In granting the permit, the Minister can specify the maximum number of copies that the approved offshore newspapers can circulate in Singapore, and this number can be varied from time to time.

Generally, the permitted maximum for foreign newspapers will be more than their existing circulation, to allow for growth. And the maximum will be reviewed when the permit is due for renewal.

However, for foreign newspapers which engage in our domestic politics, it is likely that this maximum will be held at some fixed level for some time or even reduced, if the situation warrants.

Sir, the new section 15A, subsections 3(b) and (c), provides that offshore newspapers applying for a permit to circulate must undertake to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of Singapore courts, appoint a person within Singapore to accept service of any notice or legal process on behalf of the proprietor or publisher and furnish a deposit for the purposes of meeting any liability or costs arising out of legal proceedings taken against the newspaper.

This new amendment will overcome problems and difficulties encountered in the service of process on defendants. As the law now stands, the defendant who is outside jurisdiction would have to be served in that country where he has his head office and where he normally carries on business. This means that the plaintiff will have first to ask for leave from the High Court in Singapore and then after having successfully obtained an order of court, effect service on the defendant outside the jurisdiction, with all its attendant difficulties.

Sir, to give one recent illustration: Lawyers acting for the Prime Minister had for more than five months been unable to serve notice of the Writ of Summons on Mr Peter Kann, the President and Chief Operating Officer of Dow Jones. The Solicitors for Dow Jones wrote to say that they had no instructions to accept service on behalf of Mr Kann. The US Department of Justice was also unsuccessful in serving the writ as the attorneys in Dow Jones Corporate Legal Department in New York refused to accept service for Mr Kann and claimed not to know his whereabouts.

It was only after the First Deputy Prime Minister raised this with Miss Karen Elliot House of Dow Jones that the General Counsel of Dow Jones wrote to say that he had been authorised to accept service of the writ on Mr Kann's behalf.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as only offshore newspapers with sizeable circulations in Singapore will be subjected to the permit requirement, only a small number of foreign publications and newspapers will be affected by this Bill. Newspapers which are published at intervals exceeding one week and those with small circulation are not affected. The majority of international and regional publications are not affected. They will continue to have free access to the Singapore market.

This Bill is not intended to curb the circulation of any publication, neither is it intended to prevent the free flow of information. Rather, it is to establish the point that foreign publications circulate in Singapore as a matter of privilege and not of right, and if they want to sell here, they must abide by our laws and must agree to come under the jurisdiction of our Courts.

This is a position which, I believe, no foreign publisher can reasonably disagree with. Asiaweek, for instance, has publicly accepted our stand, and, in the case of Dow Jones, in an exchange of letters between our First Deputy Prime Minister and Miss Karen Elliot House, Vice-President, International of Dow Jones, these points have also been acknowledged. I quote from a letter dated 31st May 1990 to the First Deputy Prime Minister:

"Dow Jones & Company, inc acknowledges that the Journal's activities within Singapore are a privilege granted by Singapore and not (as under the American Constitution) a right. I also repeat that we recognise that Singapore's courts have held that The Asian Wall Street Journal in 1986 engaged in the domestic politics of Singapore. We have no further rights of appeal from that decision; it is final, and we accept it as such.".

Further on in the same letter, she says:

"... it [in other words, The Asian Wall Street Journal] will continue to be subject to Singaporean law. We respect the countries in which we operate worldwide and their laws.".

This Bill, therefore, is a natural follow-up to reinforce the Government's position and to put in place a set of rules, so that no foreign publication circulating in Singapore has any doubts as to the conditions under which it is allowed to circulate.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Hong Hai (Bedok GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, my GPC accepts the basic objectives of the Bill that the circulation of a foreign newspaper is not a right but a privilege, that foreign newspapers should not engage in Singapore's domestic politics, and that there should be instruments to discourage foreign newspapers from so engaging in domestic politics.

As such, I am in agreement with the following measures introduced by the Bill for foreign newspapers:

(1) To have a yearly permit to circulate in Singapore;

(2) The newspapers should accept the jurisdiction of Singapore's courts; and

(3) Agents should be appointed by these newspapers to receive service of any notice or legal process.

Sir, I would, however, like to ask the Minister to give a clearer justification for the idea of a maximum permitted circulation.

Under current laws, errant newspapers can be banned. If the offence is not as serious, they can be gazetted, that is, have their circulation restricted. Why is it necessary then to introduce a maximum for each newspaper regardless of whether or not it has been errant? The large majority of foreign newspapers are responsible and behave themselves. Why then apply a quota to each one of them?

Sir, when we set a maximum or ceiling to a newspaper's circulation, either it has an effect or it does not. If the ceiling is above the regular circulation of the newspaper, it has no effect on the newspaper provided, of course, that the ceiling is raised regularly to accommodate increases in circulation. If, on the other hand, the ceiling is below the newspaper's normal circulation, you have effectively gazetted it. We already have legislation that empowers the Minister to gazette foreign newspapers. So, why bother with ceilings?

Perhaps, the answer lies in the notion that the Minister, like a surgeon, should have various instruments at his disposal to deal with a variety of situations in a more flexible way.

Let me, if I may, suggest an analogy that perhaps will illustrate the purpose of these instruments. To ban a newspaper is equivalent to chopping a man's head off: you use a chopper for that purpose. To gazette a publication is to damage its profit through reduced circulation. It is like using a stick to punish the errant: you apply the stick where it hurts most, you go for the bottom line.

The Bill that is now before the House places yet another instrument in the hands of the Minister. I am of two minds as to whether the instrument should be described as a carrot or as a screw.

It is rather like a screw in that the Minister tightens the screw on those who are liable to get out of line. The greater the deviation, the tighter the screw. The more responsible and objective the newspaper becomes, the more the screw will be relaxed.

I prefer to call the new instrument a carrot. Newspapers that behave with decorum and with respect for our sovereignty, and who do not dabble in our internal politics would enjoy generous ceilings. It is an incentive for engaging in fair and responsible reporting.

When the Bill is passed, the Minister will have a chopper, a stick and a carrot. I hope he will use these instruments sparingly. I am sure he will not subject it to abuse, as for example he would, if he lowered the ceiling for newspapers that were merely being constructively critical. It should not lead to a situation in which a publication's profitability is directly dependent on how supportive it is of Singapore Government policies. If that were to happen, it would do little for our standing as an information centre, or for our own self-esteem.

As long as we have a Government that is honest and rules with high standards of integrity, which this Government does, the new Bill will not be subject to abuse. However, if we ever get a Government that wanted to retain power at all costs, the Bill provides an enhanced means for such a Government to exploit the press unfairly to its advantage.

Sir, I would, therefore, urge the Government to make it a practice to give full accounting and justification to the public whenever a newspaper's maximum permitted circulation is lowered, or when its circulation growth is being hampered. This, I hope, would help prevent the possibility of abuse and provide the public with a check on unfair play. We must not only be fair but appear to be so.

Sir, with these caveats, I support the Bill.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the third amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act in recent years, since the PAP's open confrontation with the foreign press.

The 1986 amendment allows the Minister to arbitrarily declare and gazette a foreign publication as having engaged in the domestic politics of Singapore (which declaration, of course, is subject to debate) and so to restrict its circulation in Singapore.

The Far Eastern Economic Review, the Asian Wall Street Journal, Asiaweek, have all been affected. The Far Eastern Economic Review and the Asian Wall Street Journal still have their circulations restricted, and their correspondents are also barred from reporting even international meetings in Singapore. When the FEER chose to stop its distribution in Singapore after its circulation had been arbitrarily and drastically cut from 9,000 to 400 or 500, Government brought in another amendment in 1988 to allow approved agents to photocopy the gazetted publication, FEER, with advertisements left out, for sale and distribution in Singapore.

But this has not much improved the situation of easy access to the Far Eastern Economic Review. Not many people know where they may obtain the photocopied weekly. And now, why this present amendment? As explained by the Minister of State, because there was difficulty in service of legal process upon the proprietors of Asian Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones.

Sir, I believe, this is another knee-jerk reaction from Government, like the amendments to restrict appeals to the Privy Council in UK, after the judgement in J.B. Jeyaretnam's case. Now, the amendment Bill is intended not so much to correct any anomaly as to facilitate Government action against foreign publications in defamation suits, should it prove advantageous for Government to do so.

Various conditions are to be imposed for granting permits for the sale and distribution of offshore newspapers in Singapore. And may I say this, Sir. This immediately reminds me of the somewhat similar imposition of new rules and regulations for the application of the yearly permits for the Barisan Sosialis Party organs, the "Zhen Xian Bao", in Chinese, and the Plebeian, in English, 16 years ago in 1974.

The then new rules in the application for the permits made it necessary for a poli- tical party to list in the application forms the names of not only the Editor and Publisher, but also the names of all the Central Committee Members of the Party and, together with, (this is the important part) their disposable capital, including the value of movable and immovable property owned by them. I find this last objectionable condition omitted in the most recent application forms.

The threat in the new rules at that time was crystal clear. In the case of the Barisan Sosialis, it was a threat of possible defamation suits against not only the Editor and Publisher, but also against all the Committee Members of the Party.

The then new rules, Sir, were of course, meant to ban the Party organs indirectly, which they did, as it was quite easy to stop the Barisan Sosialis from filing fresh applications for the yearly permits of the Party organs, one in Chinese, one in English.

But how will the present amendment, and the imposition of new rules for the application of permits for the sale and distribution of offshore newspapers, affect the foreign publications now being distributed in Singapore? Many of the foreign publications have huge financial resources. They will not be that easily intimidated, like the hapless Barisan Sosialis then, and I am sure, they will easily and gladly comply with whatever new rules and regulations that may be imposed.

But what will be the possible outcome of the open confrontation between the PAP Government and the foreign press, or rather, certain foreign publications? There is already a record of frequent post-election defamation suits against political opponents, and also of recent defamation suits against certain foreign publication. Then there were the amendments last year to restrict appeals to the Privy Council in the UK.

Thus, whether or not we agree with the PAP's so-called cardinal principles, as pronounced by the First Deputy Prime Minister, the passing of the amendment Bill will certainly cause foreign publications which have complied with the new regulations to be extra careful in their comments on issues and events in Singa- pore. Of course, these foreign publications may either ignore or bypass all news about Singapore affairs or just blandly report controversial issues in Singapore without comment, like what the local press does. Either way, that would be a great loss for our people in Singapore. We would not know how other people and foreigners especially see us. We would not know what their comments are, whether they are objective or subjective or slanted, and how they compare happenings in Singapore with events in other parts of the world.

What does all this mean? In Singapore today, Government already exercises full control over the amalgamated local press. TV and radio are Government monopolies. Professional organisations are discouraged from making comments on controversial political issues. The Law Society cannot comment on new legislations publicly unless requested by Government to do so. Only political parties may express political dissent and their views are given scant publicity, if at all, in the local press and none at all over TV and radio.

Legislation is also being prepared to control criticism of Government policies by religious bodies, and now we have an attempt to control the foreign press in Singapore. Yes, Sir, despite the assurance given by the Minister of State, the amendment Bill is clearly intended to be yet another attempt to control the foreign press, and to restrict the free flow of information in Singapore.

The PAP Government will naturally gain much adverse publicity internationally for what it does now. But the real losers, I must emphasise, are the people of Singapore. Because the amendment is an attempt, in however a limited way, to shut the people of Singapore off from the world that enjoys free flow of information. Of course, we have other facilities or communication like fax, satellite TV and whatnots. But such things are not easily available to everyone.

An hon. Member: Fax is available.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: When the circulation of foreign publications is restricted, it is no longer easily accessible. After all, not everyone can have the time and convenience to go to public libraries to read such gazetted publications with restricted circulation in Singapore. If the vast majority of our people are uninformed or misinformed, then the stage is set for the government which already controls the local media, to effectively influence our people's thinking on vital issues. That is how thought control is carried out in Communist countries and in fascist countries.

I see the First Deputy Prime Minister laughing. Of course, he knows it. It looks as if we in Singapore may be heading step by step towards the same type of thought control under the PAP Government. With the new PAP leadership, there is a great deal of talk about consultative democracy. But unless there is a free flow of information with no restriction whatsoever, there is no possibility of any form of democracy in Singapore. The people must first be informed and knowledgeable before they can take part in meaningful discussions and give their constructive views on important national issues. If Government should be genuine about the consultative democracy and not wish our people to be uninformed or misinformed on world and local issues, then it should seriously reconsider its intentions to push through the amendment Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 2.45 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.20 pm until 2.45 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.45 pm