SINGAPORE BROADCASTING AUTHORITY BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Information and the Arts (BG George Yong-Boon Yeo): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Singapore Broadcasting Authority (SBA) Act will replace the existing Broadcasting and Television Act and the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation Act.

The Act will establish the Singapore Broadcasting Authority as a statutory board to regulate and promote the broadcasting industry. It empowers SBA to exercise licensing and regulatory functions over broadcasting services and broadcasting apparatus.

The Act also provides for the corporatisation and privatisation of SBC. Properties, rights and liabilities of SBC will be transferred to SBC's successor companies and SBA. The Act enables the corporatised SBC companies to offer for sale to the public their shares or debentures at a later date.

The SBA Act spells out the regulatory framework for the broadcasting industry. Broadcasting plays an important role in informing, educating and entertaining the public. While we want the regulatory environment to be conducive to broadcasters, we must also ensure that the public interest is protected. A good framework will enable us to do both. We want foreign broadcasters to operate here and to use Singapore as a regional broadcasting hub. But we also want Singapore to remain a wholesome society.

We must take into account rapid technological developments. Conventional methods of regulating television and radio based on modes of transmission are no longer adequate. For this reason, many countries are moving towards a broader definition of broadcasting. We will do the same. In the SBA Act, broadcasting is defined in terms of programme transmission to all or part of the public without reference to the particular means used.

This wider definition enables SBA to regulate broadcast content in the face of new technological realities. It enables SBA to regulate not only nationwide radio and television services, but also in-house movie systems in hotels, private clubs and condominiums, video-on-demand services, audiotex services and computer information services. Such breadth is necessary to catch new forms of `narrowcast' programme dissemination.

The Act provides that only the services gazetted by SBA as licensable broadcasting services will need to be licensed. The list of licensable broadcasting services is included as a Schedule to the Act. As new categories of information services become available, the Minister can vary the list of licensable broadcasting services. But we should not regulate more than is necessary. For example, we have not included broadcast faxes in the present list of licensable services as these are largely used for private communications. We have also not included computer information services as it is easier to regulate such services through the Films Act.

There will be two types of licences - individual licences and class licences. Broadcasting services with major impact on society will be individually licensed, with conditions put on programme content as well as programming mix.

The class licence provides a simple way to license non-major broadcasting services without requiring each service operator to apply for a licence. This enables SBA to regulate the programme content of services such as broadcast data services without having to license individual service operators. These services will be deemed to be licensed as a class as long as they comply with conditions laid down for the class.

To safeguard programme standards, SBA will establish guidelines on censorship and programming mix. Obligations to protect and serve the public interest should continue to be placed upon broadcasters, including the privatised successor companies of SBC. For programming mix, SBA will specify in the licence minimum levels of public service broadcasts, such as, educational programmes, children's programmes and minority language programmes.

SBA will commission broadcasters to provide public service broadcasts over and above the minimum levels to ensure that such programmes are not neglected. This will include subsidy of locally-produced programmes. For this purpose, our television and radio licence fees and broadcast franchise fees will be paid to SBA and become part of its revenues. In addition, SBA will receive an annual grant from the Government.

In monitoring programme standards, SBA will consult independent advisory bodies, such as, the Censorship Feedback Panel, the Programme Advisory Committee, the Advisory Committee on Chinese Programmes and the Committee on Television Violence.

SBA will have powers to censure, fine or withdraw broadcasters' licences if they breach licence conditions.

The Act gives the Minister powers to proscribe objectionable foreign broadcast services that are receivable in Singapore. This makes it an offence to support a proscribed foreign broadcast service, for example, by facilitating reception, supplying equipment or programmes, advertising or publishing programme listings.

This provision is targeted against foreign services that are pornographic or incendiary in nature. The UK Broadcasting Act of 1990 has a similar provision which may be used against offshore pornographic satellite television channels.

Technology is making censorship harder and harder to enforce. To meet the public need for greater choice without losing control over pornographic and incendiary material, the Act also provides for the licensing of broadcast receivers. This enables SBA to regulate the use of receiving equipment, such as, satellite dishes and other broadcast receiving equipment.

We will also ensure that ultimate control of major broadcasting companies remains in local hands. The Act provides for limits on foreign ownership and management as well as controls on the receipt of foreign funds. However, it is not our intention to prevent foreigners from operating regional broadcast services here. In fact, we encourage them to operate from Singapore.

The SBA Act empowers SBA to require owners and developers of buildings to provide facilities of a standard acceptable to SBA within their buildings. SBA intends to use this power to require all new buildings to have cable-ready master antenna systems so that cable television and IT2000 services can be introduced quickly. This will reduce inconvenience and cost to individual households.

SBA will also have powers to require owners of high-rise buildings to provide tap-off points to improve the reception of broadcasting services in surrounding low-rise buildings. This is important because of the number of high-rise buildings in Singapore. SBA will work out a system of cost-sharing which is fair to all parties concerned.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Act will give effect to the corporatisation of SBC and the transfer of assets and staff to the successor companies. Singapore International Media Pte Ltd (SIM) owned by Temasek will be the holding company for the successor companies. MITA plans to corporatise SBC into wholly-owned Government companies later this year.

The privatised successors of SBC will remain Singapore's national broadcasters. In the era of cable TV and multimedia, there is a danger that foreign channels will displace local channels. However, protecting local channels in the old way is no longer possible. Instead, we should give them special positive support. And this will be one of the key tasks of SBA. To retain our own sense of place, it is essential that television in Singapore has sufficient local programming and content. It is important that our national broadcasters remain anchor channels in Singapore and not be swamped by overseas broadcasts.

The objective of privatisation is to make the successor companies of SBC stronger in the face of unavoidable foreign competition. We want them to have more operational flexibility and be under the discipline of the market place. They must be more efficient in delivering better programmes and hold their audiences. Ultimately, the successor companies of SBC will have to stake a place for themselves in an ever competitive international broadcasting market place. As television becomes borderless, they will have to venture into regional broadcasting themselves.

SBC's three free-to-air TV channels will be spun off into two separate companies. Channels 5 and 8 will be grouped into one company. Its mission will be to broadcast good English and Chinese programmes and fulfil public service broadcasting obligations.

The second company will operate Channel 12. It will broadcast high-quality public service programmes as well as programmes in Malay and, later, possibly Tamil as well. We are now studying the feasibility of moving Tamil broadcasts from Channel 8 to Channel 12 to give them better slot times. Cultural and nature programmes on Channel 12 will then be moved to a new UHF channel. This will enable us to strengthen both Malay and Tamil programming.

The existing SBC radio stations will be privatised under one radio company for economies of scale.

In addition, a separate company to operate broadcasting facilities will be set up. It will be free to sell services to non-SBC companies.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Peter Sung (Buona Vista): Mr Speaker, Sir, I had a discussion with Members of the GPC on Information and the Arts on this subject and I now speak on their behalf in support of the Bill.

Tremendous developments have taken place in IT technology and in broadcasting. Not to keep up with these developments is to be left behind and this will also affect the economic competitiveness of Singapore; something that we should avoid. The question really is whether there is a way to keep the technology separate from the contents of the programmes that reach the living rooms of every household in Singapore.

Sir, this is not a new subject. We have discussed this at length during the Budget debate and in the Committee of Supply, not only this year but also last year. With your permission, Sir, I shall not repeat the points but would ask officials of MITA to read the Hansard again so that Members of this House and the Singaporeans they represent have their views noted and taken care of. MITA should continuously bear these points in mind in the administration of the SBA Act.

Sir, I believe the Bill provides adequate powers for MITA to regulate and develop the broadcasting industry. I hope that MITA will not hesitate to use these powers judiciously in order to protect and safeguard the way of life that we Singaporeans want for ourselves.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 8 of the Singapore Broadcasting Authority Bill stipulates that whenever the Minister declares an emergency, for national defence purpose or in the public interest, he can have complete control of the broadcasting service of the broadcasting licensee and all its equipment. This will involve both the personnel and the physical property of the licensee. Apart from having to carry out the Minister's instructions immediately, it is also provided in the Bill that all information connected with the entire operation shall not be divulged to others.

In the event there is any doubt on the Minister's decision on the so-called emergency situation and on the "public interest", so long as the Minister issues a certificate, everything will be settled without any discussion.

Clause 27 of the Bill also stipulates that the Government can censor all the scripts for broadcasting beforehand, or order the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation to send the programme they have made to the Government for inspection before broadcasting. The reason, of course, is to ensure that public interest or national harmony is not compromised.

The two abovementioned provisions in this Bill give the Government the supreme power to have control over the broadcasting licensee and the contents of the broadcast, so that the Government can suppress any argument or views which are not favourable to it. For example, during the General Elections, will all coverage on the election campaign be required to be censored and approved by the Government before they are allowed to go on air? Will the coverage on the Opposition parties be required to be pre-recorded and censored to what the Government would consider to be appropriate before it can go on air?

The Government feels that it is necessary to control the broadcasting licensee and its programme, purportedly to be in the public interest. But then, what is the definition of "public interest"? That again is to be determined by the Minister, and there is no need for the Government to announce it. The licensee is prohibited from announcing it.

If it is supposed to be in the interest of the public, then it should be made known to the public, for public discussion to determine whether it complies with an objective standard that the Minister's decision is correct and unbiased.

However, the Bill provides that what constitutes "public interest" shall be decided and defined subjectively by the Minister alone, without any committee, Parliament or public discussion.

Now, I understand that, in Singapore, the so-called "public interest" is just a certificate issued by the Minister. The certificate should be known as a "Certificate of Public Interest"!

BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Peter Sung for his support of the Bill and I assure him and Members of the GPC and all Members here that the comments made during the Committee of Supply will be taken into account in the implementation of the new SBA Act.

Mr Low Thia Khiang made an interesting speech about how the new Act will give to the Minister powers to censor and control television. But I would like to remind him that I already have all these powers. If my intention is to keep these powers for the Government, then why privatise SBC in the first place? Why separate the SBC successor companies from the regulatory authority in the first place? If our intentions are what he claimed them to be, then it is clearly not in our interest to move on to a different way of developing the broadcasting industry in Singapore. So I would answer him by making the point that the fact that we have gone through all these changes, some of which were traumatic, affecting people in the broadcasting industry, causing members of the public to be unsettled, we do this not out of a whim, and certainly not in order to reserve more powers for ourselves, but because these are changes which we have to make to anticipate new problems on the horizon.

Indeed, the points Mr Low Thia Khiang made remind me of the standard questions which Western editors and journalists raise with me when they see me. Their standard argument is this. It is becoming more and more difficult to control the flow of information. So what you are trying to do, in fact, a point Cherian George made in his article in the Straits Times yesterday, is a waste of time. Eventually, you are trying to regulate the unregulatable. But is that true? Is it true that just because when information is digitised, when images are digitised, when sound texts are digitised, therefore we should raise our hands and say, "No, we should give up completely." Worse, even to say that the standards we hold up should therefore be brought down. I do not think so, not at all. Because, while Singapore requires complete access to information, the challenge of education will always be with us. And it is not for other people, not for Westerners, not for our neighbours, to tell us how we should educate the next generation. In the public media, there is tremendous symbolism. It makes a big difference whether we see a Hollywood programme espousing a certain lifestyle or a locally-produced programme espousing the same lifestyle.

At the National Day Rally, the Prime Minister made the point about the Sustagen advertisement, the little boy speaking like an American kid. It is one thing to have an advertisement of an American kid talking like an American kid, but quite another to have Singaporeans behaving as if they were Westerners. In the minds of Singaporeans, that distinction is made and that distinction is made both directly and indirectly through the way our national broadcasters carry out their tasks. Therefore, censorship, a sense of what is important for Singapore, must be at the core of the establishment broadcasting media in Singapore, and that is why we insist on tight regulations. It is very important. It cannot be that just because men sin every day that we then say, "All right, the 10 Commandments are no longer necessary." It is because we are constantly not able to meet those standards that we insist on the 10 Commandments, and this is what maintains the tone of society.

But, mind you, there are problems and it will be increasingly difficult to censor on a water-tight basis. Take Internet, for example. As you know, we are introducing Internet in a big way in Singapore to our schools. I asked for a briefing from NCB the other day on Internet. And I said, "How easy is it to access pornography?" So they tried for a few days. They came back to me and they said, "Well, we know the existing sources in Europe and in America which any Internet user can easily gain access to."

Of course, if you go through Singnet, it acts as a gate-keeper. But how does Singnet censor? Singnet censors on the basis that someone is there looking at the screen and picking up the obvious titles. It is like trying to censor magazines and books on the basis of titles and the cover page. In reality, censorship is very difficult and it is an endless game. So on the one hand, we must not give up the idea of censorship, of holding up standards, of saying these are the 10 Commandments, we adhere by them and, on the other, a realistic assessment that there are limits to what we can do. And some things we do for symbolical reasons, some things we do because we think they can be very effectively done.

Mr Low Thia Khiang made a big song and dance about the powers of the Minister to tell broadcasters not to do certain things and require broadcasters not to divulge these things publicly. Why do we introduce this clause? Sir, we are Singaporeans. We are a small country. We live by our wits. Many foreign friends ask us: how is it we are able to maintain good relations with both China and Taiwan, with Indonesia and Malaysia? How is it India considers us such a special friend? It is because we have a keen and deep sense of what is in our national interest. And the profoundest of our national interest cannot be publicly discussed, at least not in an openly explicit way, for they border on matters of race, they border on matters of national security. But this is not to mean that there is no parliamentary oversight. This is not to say that there is anything to stop Mr Low Thia Khiang or Members of the Opposition from standing up here and asking me questions which they think are very difficult and very incriminating. And I will answer them here, but it may not be always possible for me to give full details.

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. - [BG George Yong-Boon Yeo].

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