UNDESIRABLE PUBLICATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

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 Undesirable Publications Act, or UPA, was enacted more than three decades ago, in 1967, to provide for penalties against objectionable publications brought into the country.

At the time, publications were printed words and pictures compiled as books or simple reproductions like an audio tape. In recent times, technology has brought into the marketplace new media forms, with multi-media capabilities. The compact disc can contain text, sound and video. It may also have multiple applications. For example, if you play an enhanced CD on a hi-fi set, it functions as an audio CD. If played on the computer, it is a CD-ROM, and if played in a multimedia computer, it can show video clips as well.

New definition of "publication"

Because of such technological advances, the traditional definition of publication can no longer be "all written, pictorial or printed matter." There is a need to re-define the term "publication". In this Bill, "publication" has been re-defined to include CD-ROMS, sound recordings, pictures, and drawings generated by computer graphics.

Censorship by differentiation

Our censorship policy is based on the principle of differentiation. Different media have different impact and the extent of censorship varies accordingly. In general, moving images have a greater impact than static images, which in turn, have a greater impact than words. We are most stringent with the visual media which reach the living rooms. Thus, we are strictest with free-to-air TV channels, but we allow more leeway for subscription services such as cable TV. With films, we differentiate between G, PG, NC-16 and R(A). For films shown to members of film societies, we are more relaxed.

Within the print medium, we make a distinction between pictorials and the written word. We are stricter with graphic publications meant for children such as comics depicting sex. We are least concerned with the printed text because reading them requires a certain level of education and concentration. Some books meant for adults are required to be wrapped in plastic or cellophane in the book shops, so that children cannot browse them lightly. This principle of differentiation was also adopted by the Censorship Review Committee in 1992.

Obscene publications

Mr Speaker, Sir, our main target continues to be those who seek profit from distributing obscene publications. Currently, traffickers of obscene publications are referred to the Police for action to be taken under the Penal Code. There are no provisions to deal with such cases under the existing UPA.

Under clause 5 of the proposed amendments, those caught trafficking in obscene publications, by distributing, exhibiting, producing or having such publications for distribution, can be prosecuted under the UPA. The proposed penalty will be a maximum fine of $10,000 and/or a jail term of up to two years.

Clause 3 spells out what we mean by "obscenity":

`A publication is obscene if its effect or . the effect of any one of its parts or items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely . to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.'

Objectionable Publications

We have also included in the amendments the definition of what is objectionable. While some publications may not be blatantly pornographic or controversial, they may still be objectionable in the way they promote promiscuous lifestyles or glorify criminal activities.

Under current legislation, other than confiscation, no further action can be taken against vendors who persist in selling objectionable publications. The proposed amendment will plug this present loophole so that vendors of objectionable publications can be prosecuted.

Clause 5 of the proposed amendments allows for penalties against such distributors. For distributing, possessing or reproducing objectionable publications, the penalty would be a fine up to $5,000 and/or a jail term for one year. This maximum fine is half that for obscene publications.

Prohibited Publications

We will continue to ban publications such as Playboy and Penthouse. We will increase the maximum fine for the sale of such banned publications from $2,000 to $10,000. For the possession of a banned publication, the maximum fine will be raised from $1,000 to $2,000. No change is recommended in the jail terms as they are already a sufficient deterrent.

We have always exercised the power to ban or gazette publications sparingly. This policy will continue. We are in fact degazetting publications which, over time, are no longer objectionable on moral, religious or communal grounds. For example, the Journal of Contemporary Asia and the Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung have been recently degazetted.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry will continue to review its censorship rules from time to time to ensure that standards applied to publications and videos are in tune with changing social mores in Singapore and changes in the world around us.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (East Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. I am pleased to note that in this Bill, attention is being drawn to the implications of rapid and widespread dissemination of undesirable publications, aided by a new medium, such as CD-ROMS, which are also easy to duplicate. The revised definition of publications, in my mind, is long overdue in the light of the changing nature in which obscene and objectionable material is distributed and exhibited.

Sir, the new provisions for obscene publications in this Bill which have been previously absent would now give our enforcement agencies ground to rein in on distributors, exhibitors and publishers of such materials and I appreciate the tough stand that this Bill places on visual images as the impact of visual images, as the Minister has just said, is far more direct and damaging than the written word.

Sir, this Bill also serves to address the anomaly whereby offending vendors who sell objectionable publications would have their publications confiscated but suffer no further penalties. It is timely that penalties are now introduced and that these vendors have to be directly accountable for their participation in the distribution and sale of such objectionable materials.

Sir, while I am supportive of the measures in this Bill, I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister on the various items. The first question is: is this Bill, in the opinion of the Minister, a retrogressive step towards greater censorship of publications, or is it a step forward in our effort to promote a reading society and to promote the publishing industry?

Sir, I ask this question because I am concerned that a retrogressive step towards censorship would impact on the direction and the development of the literary and performing arts, an area which we are consciously promoting in line with our national objective to build a more gracious society. Would the Minister therefore update the House on the Government's latest thinking or policy towards censorship in Singapore?

Sir, clause 13 of the Bill leaves it to the expert judgment of any personnel authorised under the Bill to determine whether or not any publication is objectionable. I understand that this person or so-called controller will act from time to time under the direction of the Minister. May I therefore ask the Minister if he could tell the House what are the basic parameters guiding the actions of such officers and whether or not such parameters should indeed be stipulated in this legislation?

Sir, an area of clarification is also sought on the status of Internet Service Providers. The widened definition of publications includes information stored by the use of computers or other electronic device. Despite the existence of proxy services, ISP cannot fully police all such undesirable web pages and prevent access to such material, whether it is audio or visual, available through the Internet. Therefore, my question to the Minister is whether, with the passing of this Bill, operationally, the Bill will impose an overly onerous performance obligation on the part of the Internet Service Providers. Would the Minister please clarify?

Finally, Sir, I am pleased to note that within this provision of the Bill which is the new section 16, the Minister is able to grant exemption to allow, for example, institutions of higher learning to have access to such objectionable materials for research purposes. I think it is good. However, for the reassurance of this House that such discretionary powers are not unilaterally exercised, could the Minister please elaborate the guiding principles underlying any ground for exemptions?

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill as placed before this House.

Sir, the tough stand that the Government has taken with regard to obscene or undesirable publications on grounds of sex, violence, crime or drugs is appropriate and deserves support. In fact, I would say that in view of the rapid and complex technological developments in areas of periodical publications, media printing, there is a constant need to be more vigilant to ensure that the current legislation be kept relevant and that the standards of morality, decency and propriety are preserved. In this regard, Sir, I support the proposal to increase the penalties for such offences as stated in the amendments.

A new definition of what is objectionable, taking into account new technologies in sound recording and reproductions of pictures, photographs from computers, would be considered very appropriate and timely. However, Sir, while the Bill has provided for comprehensive guidelines to determine whether or not a publication is considered objectionable, it would indeed be extremely difficult in practice to determine what is objectionable. It is sometimes difficult to determine what constitutes torture, sexual and violent abuses and exploitation of nudity, let alone having to relate this with considerations for the literary, artistic, social, cultural, educational and scientific merit before deciding whether a particular publication is indeed objectionable. In fact, Sir, it is acknowledged, under the new section 2B, subsection (3), that the question whether or not a publication is objectionable is a matter for expert judgment. It is for this same reason, Sir, that it is in my view extremely difficult for any one person, such as the Chief Controller or delegated public officers, to exercise judgment over such a difficult matter and so decide or interpret the moral tone of our society.

In my opinion, Sir, I would suggest that a more civic participation involving a cross-section of our civil society be formed under the supervision of the Chief Controller to guide the Chief Controller in the interpretation and classification of such publications and to facilitate the smooth transmission, broadcast, circulation and exhibition of this publication for commercial considerations and yet in no way compromise our high standards of morality, decency and propriety.

On a more practical note, Sir, it would be difficult for any one person or corporation to determine what is objectionable and what is not. It may take expert judgment to decide how would any person or corporation find it easier to make such a decision. A person would have to make a very difficult decision whether or not to seek exemption or to determine that he has with him a publication that can be classified undesirable and may in fact find himself convicted simply because of error of judgment. Such a fear, Sir, would lead to the Chief Controller being inundated with publications that would require his approval. This could have detrimental commercial consequences. I seek the Minister's clarification and assurance that the mechanism to ensure the speedy and efficient processing of such publications is available. We should also have mechanisms where the decisions and objections to the Chief Controller and the Minister can be published and made readily available to the public giving reasons for the objections for ease of reference.

With regard to the new section 16, subsection (2), I wish to seek clarification from the Minister on the proposed fees to be imposed for seeking exemption for publications which are prohibited. In view of the low cost of these products, especially as a result of recent technology, such fees may be out of proportion to the cost of the product. Further, a period of three months for such publications and materials to be held in custody may be too long as the product could have become obsolete.

On the whole, Sir, I think this is a good Bill and wish to state my support for the amendments.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity to speak.

Sir, the Undesirable Publications Act goes back to 1938 when the colonial government first introduced it for the obvious purpose of controlling political literature. Things had changed. In 1967, the Act was repealed and re-enacted. Now, we have further amendments to the Act.

Sir, most civilised societies do not like to have censorship either on moral or political grounds. But we are not living in an ideal society. I think some degree of control has to be exercised by the society over the individual. On principle, I agree with the amendments and I support the Bill. However, I have some reservations and queries and I would like the Minister to give them his due consideration and I am sure he will do that.

Sir, we are an open society. We are in the age of information technology, satellite and cable television. Most homes have access to Internet. We are now receiving publications from India, China, Thailand, Bangladesh, Philippines, besides the traditional sources. Therefore, it is desirable that publications from these countries should not have anything that will undermine the social fabric of our society.

Not too long ago, an Indian publication which was sold in Singapore had a very undesirable photograph, though it was a beautiful photograph, in the middle of the magazine. Fortunately, Sir, I am pleased to note that this publication has not reappeared in Singapore. I do not know whether it is effective supervision by the Ministry or whether it is the voluntary will of the distributor.

Sir, we have moved a long way from the days of yellow culture of 1959 when some publications had to be prohibited. Times have changed. We must allow publications that will enrich our literary and artistic life. And I congratulate the Minister for allowing this provision in the Bill. This will ensure that the scholars are not denied these works.

I have a fundamental question which I would like to address to the Minister. This is regarding the new section 2B(1)(b).

Sir, a publication would be objectionable if it describes, depicts or otherwise deals with matters of race or religion which is likely to cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility. I beg the Minister to think of one further area which should be included, besides race and religion. Language is a very sensitive issue. Feelings of enmity and ill-will may result if a publication makes offensive comments on one's language or makes criticism in such a way that it will create ill-will.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are a multi-lingual country. As a result of political stability, the language fanatics are not in a position to inflame feelings. But not too long ago, the communalists were propagating supremacy of their language.

With your permission, Sir, I would like to go back to the early days of our Republic. At the Opening of the First Parliament on 8th December 1965, His Excellency the Yang Di-Pertuan Negara reminded the House and I quote:

`There are people in Singapore who, even after a few months of separation, still talked raucously, albeit foolishly, about the implementation of one language - the national language - in teaching at all levels including the university. If such a policy was unwise when we were part of the wider framework of Malaysia, now in the context of Singapore, the lunacy of such statement should have been manifest to all. Yet they are being made and considerable publicity in the Jawi press.'

We no longer have the Jawi press or extreme Malay leaders. It is to the credit of the Malay leadership and the people that the view of the sixties has been abandoned for the good.

Sir, language extremism is not the monopoly of any one group. There are chauvinists in every group, but we can minimize the danger. One small spark and the House is on fire. Let us have some fire prevention.

Sir, the fact that we do not have communal clashes must not leave us to believe everything is fine. From time to time, chauvinists rear their ugly heads. We must try to curb the exuberance of chauvinists. Language is a very emotive issue. People are prepared to die for it. Some do die in the hope that they will become martyrs.

We can learn from the experience of other countries where language groups clash. The end result is chaos and disorder. These countries often experience riots. We too had our fair share of riots and curfews. I think there is a loophole in the Bill. Let us cover it now to prevent a floodgate. We have not seen for sometime the language issue being openly debated, but it can reappear.

We pride ourselves as pragmatic people practising prevention and looking beyond the horizon. We enacted the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. The law has a salutary effect. The fanatics and fundamentalists have adopted a moderate line. The need to enforce the law has not arisen because of the Act.

May I urge, in a similar vein, the Minister to consider including language in the sub-clause. If he cannot do so, he should state his stand on the matter so that a clear message will be sent to the would-be mischief makers.

Sir, I welcome control of objectionable publications. However, I would like to plead for caution. We must not prohibit publications as long as they do not question our fundamental beliefs. We must keep our windows open even if it means some foul air coming in. The Bill is going to give the Government wide power. There is no way to check against abuse.

May I suggest that whenever the official decides to classify any publication as objectionable publication, he should consult advisers who are drawn from outside the Government. In this way, the public would have confidence in the decision of the official, bearing in mind that there is no appeal to the Court, as the Minister's decision is final. I therefore plead for establishing a Committee of Advisers.

Sir, we also must urge the publishers and booksellers to have some degree of self-censorship. Recently, my attention was drawn to a book by one of the popular fiction writers in America. It is supposed to deal with the corporate world, but every one in 10 pages speaks of explicit sexual acts, often fringing on perversity. I will not mention the book to this House but I will give the title to the Minister.

Sir, I can do no better than to end my speech by quoting again the Address of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in 1965. May I quote:

`Needless to say, the more extreme any community is about one race, one language and one religion, the more likely it is to arouse counter chauvinism amongst the other communities to the detriment of all.'

Sir, with this, I end my speech and I support the Bill.

Mr Simon Tay: Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. The amendments are commendable. The policy of differentiation the Minister has explained is a progressive step. In deciding what is objectionable, the Bill will take into account different audiences and media and also allow the recognition of merit on scientific, artistic and other grounds. I believe this follows the Report of Prof. Tommy Koh's Censorship Review Committee 1992. I think this is something we should all support.

I, however, wish to seek one assurance from the Government and to offer three suggestions. The assurance I seek is with respect to the meaning of "obscene". The Bill gives a new definition of the word. This definition needs to be clear as regards other laws which use the same word. There is a degree of overlap with section 292 of the Penal Code which provides sanctions for the sale of obscene goods. As such, the assurance I seek from the Minister is that there will be a consistent interpretation and application of what is obscene under the different laws.

Let me move on to my three suggestions. My first suggestion is in respect of panels to assist the Chief Controller. The Bill defines "objectionable" to take into account the impact of the medium, artistic, scientific, educational and other merits, and standards of morality generally accepted by reasonable members of the community. This is commendable. Past Malaysian and Singaporean cases have not taken such criterion into consideration. In the past, we have seen books as the Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller be the subject of criminal prosecution. Similarly, in England and other societies, there had been controversies surrounding D.H Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover. Today, such texts are studied in University or even at `O' levels without controversy. So, as the Minister has recognised and this Bill recognises, standards change. However, given this dimension of change over time and the reference to society's changing mores, and given the expanded criterion, can the Chief Controller alone or Controllers within the Administrative Service by themselves decide what is objectionable?

This then comes to my suggestion. The decision-making on what is objectionable should include both specialists and representatives of the community at large. They would assist and advise the Chief Controller. I understand that the Ministry has done this informally already. The process should be formalized and publicized. This can be an area of growth for civil society, by which I mean that civil society, the citizens of Singapore, should progress towards greater self-responsibility and self-regulation.

I move on to my second suggestion. This is that distributors of publications be allowed on a voluntary basis to make prior submissions to the Ministry. Sir, the Bill and the Act, as they exist, are largely reactive. After a publication is imported, the Controller can decide and require certain actions to be taken. However, import and distribution of publications for sale are a business. Business requires certainty and proper planning. Powers under the Bill should then be proactive and pro-business. My suggestion in core and in sum is that distributors have the option to submit on a voluntary basis a sample copy to the Controller to have his permission for import. There should be a time limit given to the Controller to give a decision, favourable or otherwise, and then if favourable, the books can proceed en masse.

Again, I understand this is the informal practice under section 10 of the existing Act. However, it is sometimes after mass imports have already been made. My suggestion would reduce uncertainty and risks for distributors.

My third suggestion is that the public should have greater access to the list of objectionable publications. Of course, not the objectionable publications themselves but the list. The new section 2B of the Bill provides that the Chief Controller shall keep and maintain a register of objectionable publications. The list serves to inform people. However, there is no provision that the register should be made known. As such, my suggestion is that it is preferable to have the objectionable publications gazetted and, moreover, for practical public access, the register should be listed on Internet and copies of the register made available for inspection perhaps at main reference libraries.

With that, I support the Bill.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, the Undesirable Publications (Amendment) Bill is intended to restrict obscene and other objectionable publications, taking into account the technological developments in Singapore. It also raises penalties. The Bill, however, does not cover "films" which are covered by the Films Act.

This Bill is to be welcomed as it seeks to take into account the gaps in the law which have arisen through technological developments, especially electronic publications. The definition of "publications" now includes computer-generated or stored graphics and sounds, and the definition of "supply" also covers the transmission of such publications through computers.

The definition of "obscene" is the same as that used in the new Films Bill, though the latter does not contain a definition of "objectionable". This means that there can be both obscene films and publications, but no "objectionable films". It is not clear why this is the case.

Another concern that I have is the somewhat wide meaning of "objectionable". For example, in the new section 2B(1)(a), it is stated that:

`a publication is objectionable if ... it ... describes, depicts, expresses or otherwise deals with ... matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, violence or the consumption of drugs ... in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good;'

The controllers appointed by the Minister are the guardians of the public good, as it is their opinions that count in the Bill. In forming their views, they need not take evidence. It is said that whether a matter is objectionable or not is a matter for expert judgment. It is by no means certain how one can acquire training and expertise to determine whether a publication is likely to be injurious to the public good, or what level of injury is required before a publication is declared to be objectionable. Further, new subsection 2B(3) is unclear as to who should provide these experts with the evidence which they are under a duty to consider, if available. All in all, it seems to be an open-ended provision that may be difficult to apply, and even more difficult to challenge. I should like to know whether this is actually intended.

The second issue I wish to raise is that the Bill does not purport to deal with the different types of obscene publications. In the new Films (Amendment) Bill, there is a special provision on aggravated offences where a child or young person is involved. A simple illustration will be sufficient to expose the anomaly in the proposed laws. An obscene film is made using a young person. The person who makes the film or who procures the young person to make such a film will face a minimum of a $20,000 fine, with the possibility of a $80,000 fine ceiling, and two years in prison. Another takes a set of obscene photographs involving the same person is liable to a fine under this Bill not exceeding $10,000 or two years jail or both. In the days before photo-realistic images can be produced on the computer or camera, it may be justifiable to distinguish between film and publication. But now the distinction, I submit, appears to be spurious. I would urge the Minister to take this point into account.

Where a distinction is not spurious, but where it is not drawn in the Bill, is in the case of child pornography. The new Bill does not make this distinction. The Films (Amendment) Bill makes such a distinction. What is the reason for the difference in approach? It cannot be that a pornographer who exploits a young person by taking photographs is morally less reprehensible than his counterpart who makes a film. In many jurisdictions, child pornography has been singled out as a particular evil requiring special sanctions. In the US alone, about 15 states have enacted special provisions to tackle this problem. We should do the same, as we have done in the case of films.

I should like to quote the statement of Louis Freeh, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, giving evidence before the Senate Appropriations Committee last year. There he said, and I quote:

`Our children are our nation's most valuable asset. They represent the bright future of our country and hold our hopes for a better nation. Our children are also some of the most vulnerable members of society. .. Protecting our children against the fear of crime and from becoming victims of crime must be a national priority.'

He then went on to point out that the marvellous advances in computer and telecommunications technology "that allow our children to reach out to new sources of knowledge and cultural experiences" are also exposing them to exploitation and harm.

I would therefore most earnestly urge the Minister to review the existing and proposed legislation, with the following considerations in mind. First, there should be a distinction made between child pornography and other types, with enhanced penalties for the former. Second, there should be no distinction made between pornography in films, in publications and in broadcasting. Third, there should perhaps be a refining of the definitions used in the legislation.

Sir, I support the Bill subject to what I have said above.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.02 pm until 3.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm