NEWSPAPER AND PRINTING PRESSES (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Mr Speaker, Sir, the key element of this Bill is the introduction of a permit for an offshore newspaper to circulate in Singapore.

When I discussed this amendment with some young professionals in Singapore, the first question they asked is whether this amendment constitutes a form of censorship, however subtle it may be. Mr Speaker, Sir, this misconception should be dispelled thoroughly in the course of this debate.

To me, Mr Speaker, Sir, censorship takes place when individual issues of a publication and individual articles in the issues are examined and offending paragraphs are expunged or obliterated with black ink. This amendment does not impose this on the newspapers. In my view, the new requirement for a permit makes it compulsory for an offshore newspaper to declare its intention to circulate in Singapore. Furthermore, by going through the process of an application for a permit, the offshore newspaper will gain a clear understanding of the ground rules in Singapore. By accepting the permit, the newspaper in effect accepts the ground rules that we would like to uphold in our country. These ground rules that the newspapers should observe are not some over-bearing ones. They are, to my mind, simple ones that should pose no difficulties. Clearly, there is no intention whatsoever to change the editorial policies of the newspapers concerned.

From what we have observed in the past, what the Government would like to uphold is fair and accurate reporting. In particular, the Government would like the offshore newspapers to observe and be committed to the right of reply. In other words, when a newspaper publishes a critical article, the other party, be it a private person or the Government, should have the right to present his side of the story. The readers could then be the judge. To me, Sir, observing the right of reply of the other party would ensure responsibility of fair reporting by all newspapers. Of course, no one likes new restraints, least of all, foreign journalists.

However, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not the only society which has enough of irresponsible reporting. The British Parliament has declared its intention to introduce legislation to guarantee right of reply in newspapers. I recall reading recently a news report that the British press has been given a "final warning" to buckle up on this issue of irresponsible reporting and to provide the aggrieved party the right of reply, or face the consequences when legislation is introduced to regulate the press in this matter.

Sir, the second litmus test I would like to apply regarding this Bill is whether foreign publications still enjoy greater privilege vis-a-vis local publications when this Bill becomes law. To me, the answer is obviously yes, and the obvious privilege is the privilege of foreign publications to carry cigarette advertisements when our own publications are banned from doing so. We all know that the greater part of the revenue of newspapers and weekly magazines comes from advertisements and cigarette advertisements form the major part. As such, I am not happy that foreign publications circulating in Singapore under the new rule can still carry such advertisements which allow them in a way to bypass our express intent as a people to curb smoking in our country. If this is not a privilege, then what is?

Sir, I do have a point to seek the Minister's clarification. The premise of the original amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act is to deter foreign newspapers from engaging in domestic politics. This amendment is an extension of the original amendment. As such, I find the definition of "offshore newspapers" as those reporting on countries in Southeast Asia a bit too wide from this particular perspective. I can understand that to make the definition narrower to reporting purely on Singapore would be too restrictive from an administrative point of view. However, critics of this Bill could point out to this definition and claim that Singapore would like to extend its purview beyond its boundary and thereby weakening the rationale for this Bill. Perhaps the Minister can reply.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (Eunos GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to declare my interest in speaking on this Bill, as I work in the publishing and printing industry.

Sir, I support the Bill. I understand the rationale for the Bill. But I would like to ask the Minister whether the Bill would have any economic impact, directly or indirectly, on Singapore. Sir, the publishing and printing industry is one of the fastest growing industry in recent years. In terms of value added, it averaged 15% growth in the last three years. The Government through EDB has been promoting Singapore as a regional publishing and printing centre. Today, Singapore is a major distribution centre for many local, regional and international journals and newspapers. Singapore is also one of the most competitive commercial printing centres in this region, competing strongly with Hong Kong, Korea and Japan. Most of the journals and newspapers which are distributed in the region are also printed in Singapore. Because of our strategic location and advanced infrastructure, many publishing and printing companies have indeed set up operations, including regional head office in Singapore.

Sir, the printing and publishing industry has had its share of contribution to our economy. In 1989, there were more than 300 establishments in the industry with a total output of $1.5 billion and a value-added of over $800 million. The industry today employs more than 15,000 workers.

I am concerned, Sir, as to whether the introduction of this Bill would affect Singapore's status as a regional printing and publishing centre. I know the Minister said that the impact is small as only a limited number of foreign publications would be affected by the Bill. I want to know whether the Minister or his Ministry has assessed the impact of this Bill on the Government's efforts to promote and develop the publishing and printing industry.

One observation often raised by critics in the industry is that although the impact of the Bill may appear small and negligible, it carries other implications. It may send a wrong signal to many a foreign publisher who may then pull out totally from Singapore. This indirect impact could be serious in the longer term, especially on our efforts to promote the Singapore publishing and printing industry which is indeed one of the niche industries identified by the Economic Committee.

Sir, I should be grateful if the Minister would give his comments on these observations and perhaps reassure us that the Bill would not affect Singapore's status as a printing and publishing centre and that the Government will remain committed to promoting the industry.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Sir, I welcome the proposed amendments to enable the Government to deal more effectively with the foreign press. The current situation is like allowing any stranger to freely enter your home and when he misbehaves or messes up the place you find it difficult to ask him to make good his misdeeds and the damages he has caused. Without the requirement for a permit to circulate in Singapore, the foreign press may assume that they automatically have the right of circulation here. This may lead to their believing that they also have the right to interfere in our domestic politics through their publications and behaving so either with the hope of increasing their circulation or with malicious intent. I cannot believe that those who engage in our domestic politics should feel that they are here to educate Singaporeans. If anything, they should realise that by their actions they are in fact undermining our institutions and the stability of our society.

Sir, the imposition of a maximum allowable number on the circulation of foreign newspapers represents an efficient carrot and stick approach. Those publications that do not engage in our local politics should be encouraged to grow, if they can. The Minister should therefore ensure that the maximum circulation allowed for these newspapers would not at any time restrict their sales. In other words, he should be generous in granting the maximum. But for those errant newspapers the imposition of a ceiling offers us a gradation of measures instead of just banning or gazetting to make them improve their behaviour because their circulation will be affected and they would lose money. There may, however, be some who would not concede and who feel that if they can get their own governments to apply pressure on us, then we will capitulate. But they are sadly mistaken. They will find at the end that it is they, not us, who will have to capitulate because ultimately they are here to make money and this will have to be their main concern.

Sir, I am also happy to note that the Minister may impose other conditions to make the offshore newspapers accept the jurisdiction of Singapore courts, appoint agents in Singapore to receive service of any notice or legal process and furnish a security deposit to meet any liability arising out of legal action. These measures will undoubtedly induce responsible behaviour and ensure that any damage caused by those who abuse their privilege will be made good.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, I thank all Members for their contribution to the debate.

Let me first of all respond to the NCMP, Dr Lee, who opposes the Bill on the grounds that it curbs the free flow of information. Sir, how can anyone who has lived in Singapore over the last so many years believe that the Government can actually succeed in curbing the free flow of information? Indeed, how can anyone believe that it is in the interest of Singapore and Singaporeans to curb this free flow of information? Is it wise? We are an international business centre. We are a trading centre. We make a living out of knowing what is happening in the world, out of making sure that there is a free flow of information.

Would we be celebrating 25 years of independence in the manner and in the mood that we have done this year if in the last 25 years we had curbed the free flow of information, or, worse still, if we had practised thought-control? I think if anyone wishes, he can have many, many sources of information, without having to go to too much trouble. There are 4,500 publications circulating freely in Singapore, without any curbs on their circulations. Three of them have had their circulations gazetted. But even then they are freely available in Singapore. The Far Eastern Economic Review, for example, which has declined to circulate in Singapore, is freely available. In fact, I checked with Mr Lim Boon Heng just now and he tells me that there are 33 outlets in Singapore where a copy of the Far Eastern Economic Review, without advertising, is freely available. This includes all the outlets of NTUC Fairprice. It is also available by individual subscription.

There is the BBC 24-hour service, 24 hours of information freely available at the twist of a dial. So the issue is not really whether this Bill curbs the free flow of information. I think the issue in this case is who controls the political agenda for Singapore - the Government of Singapore, or the foreign press? Who is responsible for the political agenda? Who is given the mandate to run Singapore - the Government, or the foreign press? Who is responsible for the progress and prosperity of Singapore - the Government, or the foreign press? So the conditions for the foreign press to circulate in Singapore are conditions which any reasonable publisher would be able to accept.

Why have there been many changes to the NPPA over the last few years? The gazetting of foreign publications came into effect primarily because the circulations of these publications have grown to the extent that, as I indicated in the Second Reading speech, their influence and their numbers have made some believe that their role and influence is similar to that in their home countries. We moved the second amendment to the Bill to allow for photocopying to give the lie to the point that this gazetting amendment is to restrict the free flow of information, which is not the case, because any Singaporean who is interested in what is being published by the FEER is free to get a copy.

This third amendment is to give further substance to the Government's position that foreign publications circulate as a privilege and not as a right.

Sir, I move to Dr Hong Hai's comments. I thank Dr Hong Hai for restating his acceptance and his support for the Bill. He asks in particular why we need to have a ceiling on the circulation of foreign publications. He accepts the fact that we need to have a yearly permit, that they must subject themselves to jurisdiction of the courts and appoint an agent. But he is puzzled as to why we need an extra instrument, as he puts it, over and above the availability of the chopper or the scalpel. And he suggests that the new amendment to limit the circulation of foreign publications, is to establish a ceiling for foreign publications a carrot, as an additional weapon or tool available to the surgeon.

Sir, I am not exactly sure in what way a surgeon uses a carrot in the course of his work. Perhaps a screw is a more appropriate analogy. I am not so familiar with what is going on in the operating theatre, but perhaps I could use another analogy, and that is, a football game. I think what we are really doing, as Dr John Chen mentioned just now, is to set the rules of the game. If you want to circulate in Singapore, follow the rules, understand and accept the rules, and then we play. If anyone infringes the rules, yellow card, first offence; second time, red card. Or if the first offence is serious enough, then red card. So there is no question asked that the decision of the referee is final. And if anyone does not like those rules, then don't play here, go somewhere else. I think that is basically the situation that we find ourselves in.

Sir, Dr Wang is also in support of the Bill, and I thank him for that. But he asks whether this will be misconstrued as another form of censorship. I think he is quite correct in his argument that it is not a form of censorship. It is rather a means of making sure that there is fair, responsible, objective reporting. We are not talking about blanketing or blacking out criticisms. Our experience has been that even with the gazetting, foreign publications are criticising and are free to do so. But if they do so, and if we feel that their criticisms are out of order, we have the right of reply. The gazetting amendments have shown that, with it in place, our replies have been printed.

Whether foreign publications enjoy greater privilege in Singapore - yes, I believe they do. Cigarette advertising is just one example, and many others. But this particular anomaly whereby our local newspapers are required to obtain an annual permit, and a foreign publication is not - that has been a glaring anomaly which this Bill seeks to rectify.

Sir, Mr Chew supports the Bill, but he has expressed some concern about whether this Bill would have any impact on the intention of Singapore to be a printing and publishing centre. He has also given us interesting figures. He has mentioned that the growth of this particular industry over the last three years has been about 15% per annum. Over the last three years, if he recalls, we have made two amendments to the NPPA. And the fact that that has not in any way curbed or inhibited the growth of Singapore as a printing and publishing centre is fair evidence that this latest amendment will similarly not have any significant impact.

I think publishers use Singapore as a printing and publishing centre because there are many direct advantages, whether it is in the efficiency of our printers, or whether it is in the efficiency of our airport and our telecommunications systems, or whether it is our courier system. I think the sum total of all these efficiencies taken together will decide whether they print here, as opposed to Hong Kong or Bangkok.

So the fact that the conditions have been favourable for them over the last three years is ample testimony to the fact that our effort at making Singapore a printing and publishing centre is showing results and will continue to do so.

Sir, last but not least, I would like to respond to Dr John Chen who has asked whether, in the setting of the maximum allowable circulation limit, we will be generous in our setting of the ceiling for those publications which do not engage in domestic politics. As I indicated in my speech earlier, it is the intention of the Ministry to make sure that when we set the ceiling, for those publications which have no cause to get involved in our domestic politics or who have not shown any inclination to do so, that ceiling will be set in a way which will allow for continued growth. But, on the other hand, where a publication has shown an inclination to do so, I think it is within the Ministry's prerogative to set a ceiling which will ensure that the rules, as they have undertaken to follow, namely, that they do not engage in our domestic politics and submit themselves to the jurisdiction of our courts and appoint an agent, are followed, and followed closely.

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. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

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