UNDESIRABLE PUBLICATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think much of what I wanted to say has already been said by other speakers. But I do wish nevertheless to lend my support and voice the concerns that have been expressed by several of the speakers who spoke on this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Amendment Bill now seeks to assign or to confine to persons, or a person it may be, to decide what we may read, what we may see, or what we may hear. It would appear from the Bill that the community is not to have any say on this, because there is no provision made for any appeal. There is no board, as it were, that is proposed which may hear any appeals from any decision made by the Controller or any authorised officer. So the society is not to have any say at all in what it sees, reads or hears, but it has to be determined by an officer. We know not what the age of this officer will be. He may be a fairly young man who is charged with the task of deciding what is good and what is not good for the society to see, read or hear.

The Act itself contains in section 3 a very wide blanket power given to the Minister to prohibit any publication which he considers contrary to the public interest. And that itself is without any appeal to either the courts or to any body set up to consider the Minister's decision. So I would have thought since the Government already has this all-embracing power given to the Minister, objectionable and obscene publications could just as well be brought under the scrutiny of the Minister for him to exercise his power under section 3 of the Act. But now this Bill proposes to add two other definitions, "obscene" and "objectionable" as matters on which the decision of an authorised person is to be final.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the last speaker in his comment on clause 3 of the Bill on the meaning of obscene, called it archaic. It is almost impossible for anyone to really understand what is meant by a publication that tends to "deprave and corrupt persons". It is an all-catching phrase and there are no criteria set out as to what should be considered as depravity and what should be considered as corrupting persons. And there is nothing in this Bill which says who is to decide what is obscene. There is, of course, a new section 2B, under clause 3, which leaves the question of determining "objectionable" publication to a person authorised by the Minister.

As I said, Mr Speaker, Sir, the main object of this Bill would appear to me to consign all our reading materials, all our materials that we see or hear, to the judgment of one person. Is this a fitting way to prepare us for the 21st century? It might have been all right in the 18th century or the 17th century. But is that how we are going to regulate society in the 21st century that decisions about what a citizen shall read, hear or see should all be left in the hands of a single officer? As someone had said, is this Bill retrogressive or is it progressive? Certainly, if you look at the control that is to be given to one particular man to decide what society shall read or hear or see, it is retrogressive. It does not take into account the concern of the society and what the society thinks.

Let us look at the definition of "objectionable". In clause 3 (new section 2B(2)(d)) any publication would be considered objectionable if the officer takes the view that it offends the standards of morality, decency and propriety that are generally accepted by reasonable members of the community. How is he going to determine the standards of morality accepted by reasonable members of the community or will he impose his own standards of morality, decency and propriety and say, "That's it. This is what I say should be your morals and you comply with it." Equally, under sub-paragraph (c), he is asked to decide whether it has any merit, value or importance in relation to literary, artistic, social, cultural, educational, scientific or other matters. Is he equipped, Mr Speaker, Sir, to make this judgment?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is time for us to trust our people to take judgments on what is good for the society as a whole and not to continue to behave as though the members of the society cannot make any judgment or decision for themselves but everything must be made for them. I think it was not very long ago, the Economist wrote about the Singapore nanny. I think perhaps we can try and do a little less with the nanny taking charge of everything for the people.

There have been suggestions that perhaps a committee should be set up now which will decide questions of morality and other questions as to whether any views or books are likely to cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different racial or religious groups.

So I would add my plea, the plea that has been made, that the questions that I have raised should not be left to the decision of one person but it is time that we set up a board of persons. We have the Inter-Religious Advisory Board. We have other boards. Is it not possible for us to get their help to formulate standards of morality and decency that the society should follow? I would urge the Minister that he should not move on to the Third Reading of the Bill this afternoon but that he should refer the Bill to a Select Committee now so that the views of the community may be heard as to what they think of the Bill and its definitions and, particularly, people from the literary and artistic bodies, cultural bodies and educational bodies be heard on what should be considered as objectionable or even obscene.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a difficult question to decide what is obscene. To many, it would appear that the human body itself is obscene if there is a drawing of the human body. Is that what we consider obscene? Sometimes, I am surprised when persons are charged with an obscene act where it would appear that displaying the human body is considered to be an obscene act. So my plea is that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee and the views of the community heard and that we should not rush into passing this Bill this afternoon. But if that is not possible, then consideration should be given to finding other ways than to consign the judgment on these matters just to a single person. And even if that is not acceptable, consideration should be given to providing for a system of an appeal to an independent board or body that will then be able to pronounce on it.

BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to thank Members for making very thoughtful and helpful suggestions on the Bill and for the general support of its provisions.

First, let me take Mr Chew Heng Ching's basic question. Does this Bill signify a change of policy on censorship? I think that is the key question we must ask. Are we tightening or are we loosening? In fact, it is neither. It is not the intention of this Bill to re-calibrate the general policy of censorship in Singapore. This issue we reopen once every 10 years. We had a review in 1981. The last review was by Prof. Tommy Koh in 1992 and, in that review, they went through the full range films, magazines, newspapers, the performing arts. And many Members are not aware that in fact there is quite an elaborate mechanism to help the controllers. Assisting the controllers, we have in fact an Advisory Panel consisting of a large number of individuals drawn from a broad cross-section of our society, men and women, different religions, different age groups, different professions, different marital status in order that for different categories, like for cartoons and for different language publications, we have a group of fair-minded jury men who will advise the controllers on their work, their internal guidelines and these guidelines are reviewed from time to time to adjust to changing mores and to the changing patterns in the industry.

There is a provision for appeal to the Minister. In fact, very few appeals come to me. And even when they do come to me, I would always cause it to be referred to a Publications Appeals Committee chaired by Prof. Eddie Kuo. And it is very rarely that I disagree with their recommendations. I am not sure if Members or indeed members of the public are aware of who are in the Publications Appeals Committee and the Advisory Panel. I think I would now ask my officers, in order to reassure members of the public and Members of the House that in fact these decisions are not taken in isolation, to publish a list of all those who are involved and they are long lists consisting of very upright, fair-minded people in the community.

The purpose of this Bill is not to review censorship provisions or to change the way we censor books or comics or publications. It is to catch up with multimedia technology, and catching up with multimedia technology is breathtaking. I think all of us, as individuals, find it hard enough, and trying to maintain a certain level of censorship in this day and age with the Internet, with CD-ROMS, with VCDs, is an uphill task. So we have got to adopt a very practical approach in the way we go about doing this. The purist would say why not we start afresh. As Prof. Chin said, how can there be a distinction in the electronic media between film, publication, video and so on. That may be. But frankly, the Internet phenomenon, for instance, which is a very recent phenomenon, has exploded so rapidly that no jurisdiction in the world, no regulatory authority in the world, has been able to fully catch up with it, and the debate is still swirling in all four corners of the earth.

So what is our general approach? Our general approach is not to try and clean up the universe and anticipate all problems caused by the electronic media. That is not possible. Our basic philosophical approach is to creep. In other words, where do we start from? We are used to films. And in the old days, a film was a film. It was a simple world. Now films have become electronic. Films are no longer on reels. They are on videos. They are on CDs, VCDs, LCDs and what have you. So what we have tried to do is to creep from various acts into the electronic media. Recently, we updated the Singapore Broadcasting Act to take into account some of the new multimedia.

We have the Newspaper and Publishing Act which also creeps into the electronic media. We have the Films Act which creeps in the same direction. We have the Undesirable Publications Act today which also tries to creep in that direction. Yes, in the pure world of cyberspace, they all converge. But in the real world, it will take some time before they converge and it will take some time before our wisdom catches up with the challenges posed to us by this new technology. So it is in that spirit that I table this Bill to you for your support and approval, not to ask for a change of policy on censorship, but please, to allow me to amend the law so that we keep up with the technology, so that we can maintain as best we can the level of censorship that we are used to and which our community is comfortable with.

Of course, from time to time, our standards will change and shift. Lady Chatterley's Lover, once upon a time, shocked the community. Today, it is a subject of historical study. So we move on. Every 10 years, perhaps we take a step back. We appoint an ecumenical council, gather all the Bishops together and say, "Okay, let us make new pronouncements." But we cannot be doing this year by year. In the meantime, we have a system which has worked well, which is practical in its administrative simplicity, which has served us well. And why do I say that? Because so few appeals in the end come up to me, which is a sure sign that, by and large, Singaporeans are quite comfortable with the way the present system is operating.

Mr Chew Heng Ching asked whether this Bill will place additional burdens on Internet Service Providers (ISPs). In fact, ISPs are regulated in detail under the Singapore Broadcasting Act and they are not required to blank out sites unless instructed to do so by the Singapore Broadcasting Authority. We allow them to pass through websites, but there could be a conflict with this particular Bill. We will study this in greater detail and if there is a need to, I will, by special exemption, exclude Internet Service Providers from the provisions of this Bill.

On the question of what is "obscene" and what is "objectionable", Dr Toh See Kiat proposed a form of words. Mr Jeyaretnam takes objection to the existing definition of "objectionable". We can argue till the cows come home. We will never agree as to what constitutes "objectionable" and what constitutes "obscenity". Even we ourselves in different settings and on different days may hold different views. It depends so much on the context, on the mood, on the exigencies of the day. It is a futile exercise to try to codify so precisely that a computer can interpret it. It is not possible. In the end, it is a judgment by human beings, for it is quintessentially a human matter. And for this reason, we have established committees of jurymen who advise us and, in the main, we will go by their advice. And we accept that, from time to time, as members in the committees change, as the public mood changes, their views will also change and we creep along. I think that is the wisest approach to take. It is the method which will set us most at ease.

If we as parents, as teachers, are uncomfortable, then we can have a debate in this House. We can write letters to the press. We can post messages to the various regulatory authorities. We can write to the Minister. We can see MPs. And all these things will be taken into account, as they have been sent to me from time to time, and then incremental changes are made. There is no need for dramatic moves or gestures. What we have inherited has served us well. Let us just modify it, tinker with it at the margins and move along. This is not the time for us to make a major review of censorship policies in Singapore.

Various MPs have asked whether there are provisions to allow book importers to submit in advance samples of books, magazines or comics which they hope to import, so that they will not be caught afoul of the law. In fact, this is already done. This is already the practice. There already exists a close working relationship between the controllers and importers. They are called down for briefings regularly. We show them samples of what is at the margin, of what is acceptable and what is not. When they submit samples, administratively, within two weeks, a reply goes back to them. We will even allow submissions made in manuscript so that we can respond quickly. Our idea is not to place an additional hurdle on their trade, but to facilitate their work. This is not a problem.

Whether our fees are excessive, no. They are just to cover administrative costs.

Mr Shriniwas Rai asked whether it is possible to make objectionable language an explicit provision in the Bill. This is not necessary because in our determination of what should be prohibited, of what is obscene and objectionable, language is an integral part of the determination process. You cannot, when you are looking at the CD, video, reading a book, magazine or comic take the language out of it. The language is an integral part of it. It is part of the context and will always be taken into account. So I am more than happy to make this assurance to Mr Shriniwas Rai and to my colleagues in the House.

Yes, it is certainly not our intention to tighten our standards so as to make it more difficult for artists and creative individuals to explore new possibilities.

Are there checks against abuses? I have already explained earlier that every controller has a panel to advise him. Under the law, you can appeal to the Minister, and the Minister will first cause that appeal to be run through the advisory panel before he makes a final decision.

Mr Simon Tay asked for consistent interpretation of the word "obscene" under this Bill and as it is written in the Penal Code. I am not a legal expert but the lawyers tell me that they are entirely consistent with the common law interpretation of what is obscene, and we go by it. And certainly in the implementation, there is no desire to have inconsistency between these two laws.

I am sympathetic to Mr Tay's call for the process of determining what is objectionable and what is obscene to be made somewhat more formal. I think for a start I am not sure if it is already made known to members of the public, but the lists of members in the various panels and committees are freely available this evening, I will ask my officers to release them to the media, so that we know who are the individuals who are setting standards for us.

Mr Tay also asked whether we could provide the lists of materials which are considered objectionable. These lists are made known to the trade and we make them freely available to the public. I will certainly consider posting them on the Internet as well.

What is gazetted is gazetted. So that is clearly available in the public domain. What is objectionable is often not possible to determine beforehand. Take, for example, Playboy. We all know what Playboy is. So that is gazetted. It is banned. But there are any number of obscene magazines that are far worse than Playboy, which are not banned, because we have not come across them yet. We do not know what the titles are. So they are roughly classified under objectionable materials. By definition, it is not possible for us to list all objectionable materials. They are listed as a class of materials. But what we have already objected to, we can certainly list them and that list should certainly be made public.

Prof. Chin Tet Yung was concerned whether the evidence placed before a controller is open ended or whether there is a certain due process which allows the importer or the person who is disadvantaged to challenge it or to make appeals. I have already explained that the controller does not make the decision on his own. He is guided by internal guidelines and, in marginal cases, by committees of jurymen. And there is provision for appeal and I am further guided by a committee of appeal.

Prof. Chin was also concerned about the Films (Amendment) Bill which has been postponed to the next sitting of Parliament. He reads into that Bill a special provision for child pornography and he asked why there is no special provision for child pornography in the Undesirable Publications Act. In fact, there is no special provision for child pornography in the Films Act about which we will have a debate later. The provision in that Bill is to provide special penalties for those who make use of children either to assist in the making of a film or in the distribution of a film which we consider to be objectionable. It does not cover the use of children acting in pornographic films. In fact, in both Acts, there is no intention to make a special definition of "child pornography". Pornography is pornography. It varies in gravity. It does not mean that just because it is child pornography, it must be worse than all other categories. You can find some really depraved materials involving incest, bestiality, the whole range which afflicts the human condition. We have not tried to identify these special categories either in the UPA or in the Films Act. Administratively, what we do is to communicate our concerns to the prosecutors. They would take the depravity of the pornographic material into account and I am sure the judges too will take this into account in their judgments and in the penalties that they mete out.

Whether we should abolish the distinction between films, publications and broadcast, I have already explained earlier that while there may be a case for this in the electronic multimedia, in the practical world, we start from where we are and the problems that we face today, even though we are quite sure that in the future, the electronic media will be a source of many of the problems. What I envisage is that, from time to time, our various Acts will have to be updated and maybe at some point, they may have to be fused. But this must take place slowly and through a process of evolution. It is very difficult to attempt a comprehensive omnibus Bill encompassing all aspects.

Dr Toh See Kiat asked whether e-mails and faxes are covered under publications. Yes, they are. And if they are broadcast, then they are also covered under the Singapore Broadcasting Act.

Dr Toh also asked whether the Act covers Internet publications for which it is difficult to decide whether they are in intermediate form or final form. On electronic magazines or e-zines, they do. If you read the words carefully, under the various limbs, and under the various modes of transmission, they cover the whole gamut. But if there is a need to make further clarifications later, because the technology keeps on springing up new surprises, then we will make the necessary amendments later. But for the time being, there is no need to.

On Dr Toh's question as to why there is a difference in the definition of "supply" here and in the Films Act, that is because the intrinsic media, as they are now, are different.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe I have covered all the points raised by Members. I would just like to make one further point by way of conclusion that, however hard we try, censorship will not seal us hermetically from the world outside. We know the challenges which the Internet poses to us and to the young. But there is also the postal service where you can put things in brown paper envelopes. There are fax machines and there is e-mail. In the end, what we are trying to do is to distinguish between different configurations of bits and bytes and say, "This configuration I disallow." It is not an easy task. It can only become more difficult in the future. But what we can do is from time to time to take certain symbolic stands to affirm what is objectionable, not because we can object completely to their existence, but to make a point to ourselves and to the young that we look up to certain standards and we do not try to legitimise everything which we are not able to control. That really underlies the philosophy of all our various attempts at censoring publications and films in Singapore.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister by way of clarification? He assures us that there are advisory panels and the like. But does he not think that there is a big difference between having advisory panels and a board or a committee which makes the decision and which can hear representations from the people who wish to put out the publication?

BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, the mechanism by which we bring in public opinion and allow for standards and benchmarks to shift from time to time was examined in great detail by Prof. Tommy Koh's Censorship Review Committee in 1992. They were on the whole very satisfied with the mechanism that we had in place. There may be an argument that sometime in the future we should formalise all these panels and committees in statute. As of now, this is not necessary. They have worked well and they have served us well. Maybe in a few years' time

Mr Jeyaretnam: 21st century.

BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: When we make another overall review, we can consider whether some of these mechanisms should be made more formal. But what we really want is a mechanism which is speedy and practical. There are very few complaints today from the trade. As I have mentioned to the House, I myself have received very few complaints. We do not really want to make the process so complicated. Members will be amazed at the number of magazines and comic books that run through the hands of the censors. My guiding principle is that they should not increase their staff. In the old days, they would run through every video tape. It is not possible now. And when you can put the whole Encyclopedia Britannica into a few disks, trying to censor everything is impossible. We do it selectively and in a practical way. We have a practical mechanism in place. It is not broken. There is no need to fix it.

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.