THE ECONOMIST AND OTHER GAZETTED NEWS MAGAZINES (Conditions for lifting of restrictions)

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon asked the Minister for Information and the Arts if he will say when and under what conditions the restrictions on The Economist and other gazetted news magazines will be lifted.

Dr Ker Sin Tze (for the Minister for Information and the Arts): Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not wish to gazette The Economist indefinitely, because it is not a regional publication like the Asian Wall Street Journal, Asiaweek and Far Eastern Economic Review, but an international journal like Time magazine which only reports on Singapore irregularly.

Time magazine was de-gazetted after nine months. What happens with The Economist will depend on whether any further problems develop over the next few months.

The Asian Wall Street Journal, Asiaweek and the Far Eastern Economic Review will remain gazetted because unlike The Economist, they are regional publications which report regularly on Singapore. Gazetting will remind them that they should not interfere in Singapore's domestic politics, and that they circulate in Singapore as a privilege and not as of right. However, while they will remain gazetted, we will only restrict their circulations if they continue to flout the rules. We regularly review the circulation limits of gazetted magazines, and when justified, we will increase the limits on those which abide by the rules, as we have done with Asiaweek and the Asian Wall Street Journal.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, does the Hon. Minister of State agree that Singaporeans are mature enough to judge for themselves what is true and what is false, and there is no need to resort to banning or restricting the circulation of The Economist?

Dr Ker Sin Tze: Yes, Singaporeans are mature enough. But harmful publications will certainly produce a harmful effect on our readers. For the long-term benefit and interest of the country, the Singapore Government should not tolerate any interference from foreign publications in our domestic politics and other domestic affairs.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the Minister of State mentioned about harmful effect. Could he elaborate further in this instance what is the harmful effect?

Dr Ker Sin Tze: It could convey unhealthy lifestyle. It could mislead our people about a certain way of thinking or management of the economy or of the Government.

Mr Peter Sung (Buona Vista): Sir, would the Minister agree that since Singaporeans are mature, they should be given all sides of the story, including our right of reply, so that they can judge for themselves?

Dr Ker Sin Tze: Yes, I think we should all be entitled to our right of reply. If somebody makes a wrong accusation, we should have the right to point out the facts and correct the mistakes.

Mr Chia Shi Teck: Sir, has the adoption of gazetting served its purpose against the negative effect that we suffer?

Dr Ker Sin Tze: Can the Member repeat his question, please?

Mr Chia Shi Teck: Using this method of gazetting foreign publications, has it served our purpose? And when measured against the negative effect that we suffer, do we come out better off?

Dr Ker Sin Tze: It certainly serves our purpose. It would remind all the foreign magazines that when they circulate in Singapore, they have to report any facts, analyses or any other articles appearing in their magazines or newspapers correctly. Otherwise, their circulation may be restricted.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, if I heard the Minister of State correctly, one of the reasons for gazetting foreign publications is the propagation of unhealthy lifestyle. Does this refer to The Economist?

Dr Ker Sin Tze: It could be any other publication. But in the case of The Economist, it is the refusal to give us the right of reply. That was the reason why we gazetted The Economist.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the Minister of State mentioned about the right of reply. Could he confirm that the local media also adhere to the same principle of right of reply?

Dr Ker Sin Tze: Yes, I would think that our local media should also give whoever has the right of reply a right of reply.