UNDESIRABLE PUBLICATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Dr Toh See Kiat (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to deal with some matters of definition and address some very specific issues in this Bill.

This new Bill is meant to cover new computer technology and the word "broadcast" is to have the same meaning as that word in the Copyright Act, and "broadcasting" has a similar corresponding meaning. There in the Copyright Act the word is defined as "broadcast by wireless telegraphy". Electronic transmission is defined in this Bill as "excludes broadcasting" while supply of publication is defined by the Bill as covering electronic transmission. This leaves an area of electronic transmission where messages are broadcast, that is, they are sent to several parties with one press of the button. I hope the Minister would confirm whether or not such broadcast materials as, for example, e-mail or fax, are subject to the provisions of this Bill.

Second, the word "publication" is defined to mean "any book, magazine or periodical, whether in manuscript or final form". As far as form goes, Mr Speaker, Sir, electronic books and magazines are today feasible. Are these in "final form"? It is, I submit, necessary to add after the words "final form" some words like "and published in whatever medium, whether tangible or otherwise", to clearly cover Internet publications and so-called "E-zines" if this be the purpose.

Third, the word "supply" is defined. A similar word is defined in a slightly different way in the next Bill that will be tabled before the House at a subsequent sitting, and that is the Films (Amendment) Bill. I would like to ask if the two definitions which serve the same purpose essentially be worded in a similar way, please.

Fourth, the word "obscene" is defined in this Bill, and again this word is also defined in the Films (Amendment) Bill. What I need to say here, I may have to say it again in the debate on the Films (Amendment) Bill. Suffice it to say, it was Bertrand Russell, the sceptic, who said "it is obvious that obscenity is not a term capable of legal definition. In the practice of the courts, it means anything that shocks the magistrate". I suppose we do not want such an arbitrary standard.

As I recall, an American judge was once asked to define "obscenity". I do not remember his exact words, so allow me to paraphrase. He said in effect that obscenity is not easy to define. Nevertheless, it is like an elephant. "I know it when I see it". Our legislative draftsman has boldly proposed a definition. Obscenity is defined, "such as to tend to deprave or corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter .".

This definition of obscenity is archaic, or at least in archaic terminology. It comes from the 1868 case of R v. Hicklin, words, which were further developed, I understand, in the definition section of the UK's Obscene Publications Act 1959. Furthermore, it is too narrow in our modern age. Many things which the majority of Singaporeans regard as obscene may not necessarily be seen as "depraved" by some sectors. The definition, however, requires all who see, hear or read the publication to consider it "depraved" or in other words "evil". With the decline of moral values, even so-called family magazines and newspapers display full frontal nudes in the name of art or news. Many would still say this is obscene, but not all the same people may actually condemn it as "depravity". Depravity has very negative and ominous overtones, and is reserved today for some truly obnoxious and heinous behaviour. Instinctively, many people would hesitate to call full frontal nudity per se as "evil".

It is easier to note what is "lewd" or "indecent" or "morally unseemly" in specific circumstances. I would like therefore to update the definition of "obscenity" to something that is easier to apply, such as the words "such as to lead right minded people to consider it lewd, depraved, corrupt or morally unseemly". Perhaps, in addition, we should also have a list of criteria such as in the new section 2B(2) to help the court or the Controller decide what is indeed obscene.

Sir, I support the Bill.