FILMS (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."

In 1995, I spoke in this House about flyers being stuffed into HDB letterboxes offering pornographic video tapes for sale to residents. Sometimes, young children were used as runners to distribute such flyers.

Recently, what has become "hot" are VCDs - video compact discs. Uncensored VCDs, including new releases which are not yet available in stores, are sold at pasar malams, trade fairs and other places. A number of these are obscene. Most have been smuggled in. Of the raids conducted by the Board of Film Censors (BFC) last year, 20% of the items seized were obscene.

BFC officers report that the illegal profits are very high. Even after BFC raids, the sellers would be back the next day, selling the same obscene VCDs.

Sir, the current penalties are clearly not of sufficient deterrence. In this Bill, we are therefore proposing enhanced penalties. For example, for the first offence, the fine for distributing obscene films or videos will be doubled from a minimum of $1,000 to $2,000 per film, and the maximum from $40,000 to $80,000. For the possession of obscene films and videos, the minimum fine will also be doubled from $500 to $1,000 per film, up to a maximum of $40,000. We are also proposing that the penalty for exhibiting obscene films should be increased from a minimum of $1,000 per film to $10,000, regardless of the number of films. The enhanced penalties are aimed at those who profit from the distribution and sale of obscene videos and VCDs.

We are also proposing some new provisions to further control the trade in obscene videos. To deter the inflow of obscene videos through custom checkpoints, we propose, for the first offence, a minimum fine of $1,000 per film and/or a jail term not exceeding one year. To deter the duplication of obscene films/videos, a lump sum minimum fine of $20,000 and/or jail term not exceeding two years is proposed.

Although e-mails have been included under the definition of electronic transmission, MITA has no intention to intrude into private communications. The inclusion of e-mails is to enable enforcement action to be taken when individuals complain of obscene films sent to them via e-mail. Under the proposed amendments, electronic transmission is covered under the definition of "supply" in both the Films Act and the Undesirable Publications Act. Adapted from New Zealand law, it is intended to cover the electronic transmission of films which do not involve the supply of physical copies.

We need to do this. The market place is changing rapidly. In the US, cinema chain operators now transmit newly released movies electronically, without the need for film reels. Even individuals can package films and disseminate them over the Internet, especially when broadband becomes widely available. Our focus, however, is on those who try to profit from selling pornographic material in Singapore, not individuals who chance upon such material.

Protection of minors

Our concern is particularly for the young. We should have no sympathy for those who use children to distribute obscene videos or VCDs. Under existing laws, it is hard to penalise operators who use children in this way.

Therefore, we have specifically inserted a new section 29C which will allow additional penalties to be imposed on those who exploit children in the making, import or distribution of obscene films. In other words, those who make, import or distribute obscene films commit offences and are liable to the penalties set out in new section 29. In addition, if they use children in committing the offences, they would be liable to additional penalties under the new section 29C.

New technology

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Films Act was enacted in 1981, 17 years ago, before the advent of new technologies like CD-ROMs, enhanced CDs, VCDs and DVDs. We are redefining "films" to cover these new technologies. Under the redefinition, computer file formats with extensions like .mpg, .dat, .avi and .mov are considered as films because they comprise moving images similar to what is found in a movie or video.

Political films

In July 1996, the Government rejected an application from the SDP for a licence to sell party political video-tapes. The Government rejected the application because political videos are an undesirable medium for political debate in Singapore. In a political video, political issues can be sensationalised or presented in a manner calculated to evoke emotional rather than rational reactions. Videos also do not allow for effective rebuttals. There is also a risk that political debates on serious matters will be reduced to a contest between advertising agencies, as indeed has already happened in some countries. Our intention is to keep political debates in Singapore serious and not have them become like the selling of soap. The Films Act will therefore include a provision to disallow the distribution and exhibition of party political films in Singapore. The penalty for those infringing this provision is set at a maximum of $100,000.

The restriction pertains only to party political films. Although this will affect all political parties, it will not affect the freedom of political debate in Singapore. There are already sufficient avenues for political parties to get their views, platforms and manifestos across to the public. Political parties can print newspapers, publish books and post webpages on the Internet. Debates in Parliament are reported over radio, TV and in the newspapers. During general elections, political parties are also free to hold rallies and dialogue sessions, and are given free broadcasting airtime in proportion to the number of candidates they field.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amendments to the Films Act and indeed to the Undesirable Publications Act, which I spoke about last week, are made in response to rapid technological advances. We have to extend our various Acts - the Undesirable Publications Act, the Films Act, the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act and the Singapore Broadcasting Authority Act - to cover the new media forms. We have decided to take it Act by Act and not go for an omnibus legislation covering the entire media field because the technology is still unfolding and the problems cannot all be foreseen. We should move step by step, be guided by practical experience and not be too ambitious in our legislation of new laws.

In addition to amending the laws, we are also restructuring the censorship process in MITA. From 1st April, the current Board of Film Censors, the Censorship Section and the Licensing Section in MITA HQ will be merged into a new department called the Films and Publications Department (FPD). FPD will offer a one-stop service for the public for all matters dealing with publications and films. The Films Act and the Undesirable Publications Act will be administered under one roof by the same group of officers.

It is not our object to increase the level of censorship in Singapore. As I said in the debate on the amendments to the Undesirable Publications Act last week, just maintaining the existing level of censorship is difficult enough. What we need is a practical approach and do only what is feasible. For example, certain categories of videos like those intended for children or for training of company personnel are now completely exempted from censorship.

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 that attention has been drawn to the advancement of technology which has made the proliferation and dissemination of obscene and objectionable films easier and more extensive. We are aware of the tremendous impact that moving images have on our impressionable youths. And that access to such objectionable and obscene materials has been enhanced through the use of new media like CD-ROMs, computer diskettes and electronic transmissions. In this light, the redefinition of "film" in the Bill serves to ensure that the term remains relevant today.

Sir, the numerous seizures of obscene materials by the police and the extensive publicity by the media over how the peddlers of obscene material flagrantly distribute their catalogues, even directly to the mailboxes of residents in the security of their homes, show that the deterrent effect, as the Minister has explained, of current measures is grossly inadequate. And it is appropriate to revise the penalties now, last reviewed in 1981.

Sir, this Bill also serves to address the cynical attempts by such peddlers to circumvent the enforcement of the law through the exploitation of minors in the distribution of obscene films. As such, we are encouraged that section 29C, as the Minister has explained, puts the onus on the part of persons having custody of the children to be directly accountable for their action. And the use of children as couriers in this trade is deplorable and we hope that the authorities can make full use of this provision to act against the principals behind.

Sir, while I am supportive of the measures tabled in this Bill to tackle obscene films and protect public decency, there may appear, in our haste to stem out such negative films, an unduly onerous provision, and this is with regard to the forfeiture clause in section 16 of the Bill that seeks to retain any deposit put up by promoters and distributors of films for classification and censorship.

Sir, I believe there is already a fee to be paid for submitting films for classification. By including this forfeiture provision, I wonder whether this would deter real and genuine promoters and artists from wanting to submit artistic or commendable films for classification.

Given that we are actively promoting and marketing Singapore as a centre for the arts and to be the renaissance capital of Asia via the International Arts and Films Festival, which contributes both to the development of the local arts scene as well as tourism, there is concern that in our attempt to eradicate negative films, we may indirectly stifle the genuine growth of the arts scene in Singapore. I am therefore of the view that this provision should be reassessed, as they appear anathema to our goal of being the regional arts and media centre. And I submit to the Minister that perhaps an appeal process or an exemption process for classification of films for the films festivals and arts events be provided for.

Sir, we note that there has been some disquiet over the extension of the Films Act to disallow the distribution and exhibition of political videos. It cannot be stressed sufficiently that the national interest is upheld given that the application of the Act across the political spectrum is even handed. By disallowing the debate on political issues to be conducted through the medium of videos, both the ruling party as well as opposition parties surrender their access to what is effectively an efficient but dangerous means of debating political issues, as there is no room for immediate rebuttal in a partisan video. The impact of the use of such mass media by special interest groups with agendas inimical to the well-being and stability of society has been thoroughly researched in many other countries. The speed, the intensity and the impression that can convey in a 15-second film tape cannot be underestimated. Similarly, the tremendous damage to society, based on distortion of the truth through sensationalisation in this 15-second film tape, can undermine years of nation building and it would be almost impossible to unravel.

Sir, as a multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-racial small society like ours, the second best solution of a blanket ban across-the-board serves better to secure the cohesiveness and stability of our country than allowing the free flow of information and views which need not necessarily be conducive to society.

Sir, while western liberals argue that in a market place of information, the good ideas will prevail and will outlive the bad, and that the truth will prevail over time, there is no guarantee that this will happen here in Singapore. We are too small a country to risk the consequences that a small partisan populist posture and a medium with so much influence can do as we cannot afford to make mistakes in the path that our nation takes.

Sir, I am aware of the concern that the scope for genuine political debate is limited by this measure. However, I am pleased to note that in this Bill there are clear avenues open for such debate to continue unabated, as explained by the Minister. It is specified in new section 2(3)(a) of the Bill that current affairs films are deemed non-political, and that is good news. This clarity is certainly useful as we consciously seek to promote Singapore as a media hub. Similarly, while this Bill effectively prevents political advertising, it respects the integrity of the terms of political debate in Singapore by preventing serious discussion from degenerating into a sound byte and a video clip or a contest between advertising agencies.

However, in our effort to be comprehensive towards the eradication of the use of such medium to conduct political debate, there is a grey area and uncertainty in the interpretation of the Bill. New section 2(b)(vi) defines a film directed towards a political end in Singapore as one where a current policy of the Government or an issue of public controversy in Singapore is involved. Sir, on this point, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister as to how the provision of this clause applies to the advertising and the promotion of Government policies and public education drives by the various Ministries. Furthermore, would there be scope for appeal and exemptions for contributions by interest groups that behave in a responsible manner whose main aim is the education and the promotion of desirable causes, such as the professional bodies, Action for AIDS, the AWARE group, among others?

The severity of the present draft could be counter-productive towards the development of a civil society and the encouragement of more Singaporeans to participate and contribute in our nation's development. I would like the Minister's comments on this.

Sir, it is also not very clear in the Bill, and this is also a matter of concern among some Singaporeans, whether the party political broadcast or the air-time given by TCS during the election campaign is affected by the Bill in question. For the people who are voting and wishing to be informed in a medium accessible to them during campaign time, perhaps a provision could be made in the Bill for such broadcasts during election campaign to be allowed. I think the Bill is not very clear on this. Perhaps the Minister may wish to clarify.

In conclusion, Sir, I support the Bill and I hope the Minister will be able to clarify some of the concerns that I have raised.

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin (Nominated Member): Sir, this Bill to amend the Films Act to address the deficiencies in the law arising from technological developments and advancement has two main focuses: (1) to prohibit and deter the trade in obscene film, and (2) to prohibit the import, making, distribution and exhibition of party political film.

On the first issue, Sir, on obscene film, I support the stand taken to ensure and preserve the high standards of morality and decency. In this regard, the proposal to increase the penalties for making such films must be supported. I must compliment the Minister for the tough stand taken against persons who allow children and young persons to be involved in the production, distribution or exhibition of obscene films. The penalties in terms of fines and imprisonment are indeed severe. But they are necessary. Children and young persons must never be tempted into such undesirable acts. We have the responsibility to ensure that children and young persons in Singapore are not corrupted by sleaze and obscenity. We must strive and continue to make Singapore the best possible place to raise our children.

Sir, I welcome the proposal to increase the membership of the Films Appeal Committee from nine to 15. They are given powers to overturn decisions of public officers of the Board of Film Censors. Their participation marks a step in the right direction of having more civic participation in the censorship process and institutionalising such a process in the legislation for greater accountability and transparency. Civic participation is necessary in order to ensure that public officers, in carrying out their work, are guided by the relevant social and cultural attitudes of our society.

Sir, the second issue: to make it an offence to make, reproduce, distribute and exhibit any party political film is something different altogether. In the past, this House has seen many changes and amendments made to various Bills to take advantage of technological changes. In this instance, however, it is my view that technology which could have been used to improve communication between political parties and their electorate is somewhat unnecessarily prohibited. Singaporeans have become very interested in their politics. They want to know more about the issues of the state. Contrary to earlier perceptions, Singaporeans are not disinterested or pathetic about politics in Singapore. They want more communication. They want to be better informed. Increasing the means and mode of communication is one such way. Films and videos provide additional and more effective means of communication and this must be further encouraged.

What we do not want is excessive politicking, intruding into our bedrooms through political broadcasts and advertising. What we do not want is wrong information or misinformation. What we do not want is clandestine making and distribution of films which will cause instability, racial disharmony, panic and rumour-mongering. However, Sir, we have existing legislation to deal with such abuses. We have already limited the amount of money that political parties spend during elections or for political campaigns. We can limit the time political parties advertise or even broadcast on radio or television. In any case, Sir, we do not have too many competing radio and television stations to cause these problems.

There is also other legal recourse. For those who are guilty of defamation, my suggestion is to sue them. For those who are guilty of causing racial disharmony and instability, the Internal Security Act and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act have adequate provisions to deal with such issues. For those who breach ethics of broadcasting and journalism, we can bring them to task either through a panel consisting of professional media persons or from the Elections Department. By all means, Sir, we should treat the message and the messenger severely if this is necessary and appropriate.

In my view, Sir, the Bill defines "party political film" extremely broadly. A ban would extend to any film made by any person, not just by political parties, as long as it is directed towards any political end in Singapore. This includes any partisan or biased references to Government policies or controversial public issues. The amendment is sweeping and vague. Personally, I do not see a problem if the publication of Petir or Hammer be made into a video or compact disk. Yet such a video would be illegal. In fact, it would take much less than that to run foul of the proposed law.

I fear for the implication it has on the arts in Singapore. On literal interpretation, it would seem that even a movie like "12 Storeys", which was Singapore's proud contribution to last year's International Films Festival, could get the producers in trouble. "12-Storeys" included humorous and often critical references to toilet flushing laws, the SDU and many other Government policies. With the new law, it looks as if the producers and distributors of such creative works could be fined or jailed.

No doubt, I am assured that although the proposed law is extremely sweeping, the Minister will assure us that we can trust the Government to apply it very selectively, and that producers and distributors like that of "12 Storeys" would be safe. But this is not a satisfactory way for the legislature to deal with such issues. If we believe in the rule of law, then laws that are passed by this House must be clear and transparent. They must not be so sweeping and vague that in the end it is entirely up to the Minister's discretion whether a person has broken the law. Unfortunately, this is how the amendment to the Films Act is written or perceived. In fact, if the Bill is taken literally, even some recent television commercials produced by the Government could probably be banned. For example, in 1996, before the last general election, there were television commercials highlighting the role of public service in keeping Singapore running. Since public service was one anticipated election issue, it could be argued that this television commercial was "directed towards a political end, and that it contained partisan comments on issues of public controversy."

Sir, it would be unfortunate if such videos are stopped simply because of this legislation. On the other hand, if such campaigns are going to continue, and I think it should, how are these videos going to be exempted from the ban? Therefore, one objection to this Bill is that it is too broad and vague.

The Bill would deny opposition parties one way to reach out to citizens and inform them about their political platforms. Although this Bill affects both the PAP and the opposition parties equally, there is a general perception that the PAP already has many ways of reaching the public. The television companies and the Radio Corporation of Singapore are Government-owned. The newspapers maintain pro-Government editorial policies. For opposition parties, video tapes are perhaps one tiny way to redress this imbalance. To deny them, Sir, of this small opportunity, is unnecessary.

Therefore, on the second issue, Sir, I appeal to the Minister sincerely to give party political films a chance in Singapore.

Mr Simon S C Tay (Nominated Member): Sir, I agree to the measures on the amendment on the obscene films. I think they are a step in the right direction. I applaud the Minister for the good and increased use of citizen panels in judging what films should be treated as obscene. Let me then turn to my points of concern. This relates to the fact that the Bill intends to ban advertisements by any political party or films directed towards political end, such as attempts to affect voting in an election.

Sir, I am well aware that I am not a politician, nor an elected Member of this House. I speak as a citizen, as a voter and I have been a commentator at the last general elections as a member of the Roundtable. As a background to what I am saying, Sir, may I briefly refer to the comment by the NCMP in the last meeting of the House where he said that one of the NMPs was taking up cudgels for the Government. My view in making these comments is that Nominated Members of Parliament such as myself are neither for the Government nor against it, neither pro-PAP nor anti-PAP. We try, at least I try, to look at the merits of what is proposed in a non-partisan way, and today I have tried to consider the Minister's arguments very seriously. I do see his point that there are other avenues of debate available. But my conviction is that I must stand against this Bill in respect of the amendments concerning these prohibitions against party political films, especially in section 29D as proposed. My objection is both on principles and on the particulars of the amendments. Let me turn first to the principles.

Sir, free and fair elections should be one of the great hallmarks of Singapore's politics. It is something we can and should be proud about as much as our GNP per capita or Changi Airport. Competition between political parties in free and fair elections is what validates the PAP's continued return to Government. Because of this, a PAP victory must be recognised not only by those who support the present Government but all those who have contested or voted in the election. It is a question of legitimacy. Conversely, an unfair or unfree election makes victory hollow. For free and fair elections, the maximum width for political speech should be allowed. Political free speech has a value. It is the way in which good ideas are recognised and adopted while bad ideas are rejected. Article 14 of our Constitution recognises this. It enshrines that each citizen should enjoy freedom of speech. In practice, I believe this Government has always believed in rational and robust debate. Yes, there are recognised limits for statements that would jeopardise public order, incite racial hatred, falsehoods, or statements that damage individual reputation. But these exceptions should be just that - exceptions. And that is the first reason I am against this Bill's ban on party political films.

The ban does not restrict itself to films that threaten this sense of public order, racial harmony or other common good. It is much more broadly stated, too broadly stated in my opinion. Even an innocuous statement such as, "Vote for me and I will upgrade housing." - this if said by a political party would be subject to a ban. It seems to me that the Bill is so widely drawn that even the usual party political broadcasts during the election would be potentially subject to the ban. These are telecasts by TCS. Of course, broadcasting itself is accepted under the proposed section 2(2)(b). But the recording of the broadcast on film, video or other material record could be an offence since each party in turn calls for people to vote for them and it therefore is partisan within the meaning of the proposed section 2(2)(a).

Some have suggested, or may say, that this Bill is fair because it applies to all parties in Singapore, including the party in power. This is an equal law on the face of it - that is true. However, it has an unequal impact. The PAP is, to put it mildly, well-known, for what it has done in the past and the work of the current Government. The Workers' Party and the Singapore People's Party too have their representatives in Parliament. But other political parties are not represented here and are less well-known. They cannot showcase their abilities or, in some cases, their disabilities. There is also the consistent public perception that the media in Singapore is pro-Government. Several surveys have shown that the public thinks this is so. In this context, this equal law will have unequal impact. That is the second reason I stand against this Bill.

But more than its impact on different political parties, Sir, I oppose this Bill for the effect it can have on the citizens of Singapore. I think that as Singapore enters the 21st century, we should strive towards a greater political maturity. Part of that maturity is to increasingly allow people to discern things for themselves. To do that, we need a system that allows ideas to be communicated as well as their rebuttals and their counter-rebuttals. By banning this avenue for political free speech, this Bill moves in the wrong direction. It shields citizens like children, rather than prepares them to be mature and discerning. This Government has been the one that has asked us to be a thinking nation. Critical thought should apply to all fields, including the political choice that a citizen makes. This is the third reason I am against the Bill.

For these three reasons, rather than passing the Bill as it stands, what I believe we should do is to, first, require party political films to observe basic limits, such as the avoidance of falsehoods, incitement against public order and racial harmony, and defamatory remarks. Secondly, we should control the broad parameters of what party political films can do by fixing expenses, length, the time they can be distributed and exhibited and the numbers perhaps that each party can reproduce, exhibit and distribute. And thirdly, we should take up the citizen panels which are used for other films and establish a citizens' board which will license the political films. This is what is done for other films, including those which are potentially considered obscene. Political films should be treated in the same way.

Those are my three points and principles why I am against this Bill, Sir.

Let me move now to the particulars, and these relate generally to the over-wide definitions that trouble me.

First, in the proposed section 2(2)(b), the use of the word "partisan". The word "partisan" is defined by the Oxford Concise Dictionary as being, "an adherent of party, cause, etc, especially unreasoning one." I think if there is an "unreasoning one", an unreasonable point of view, that is something we can agree on. But the meaning of "partisan" in the earlier part is broad enough to encompass sincere and reasonable beliefs, and I think these should be allowed rather than caught in this over-wide definition.

Second, the list of examples provided in the Bill, particularly the proposed section 2(2)(b), I believe these examples are over-wide. Section 2(2)(b) bans films that question current Government policy. This potentially handicaps valid criticisms, and valid criticism is the way society improves. For example, a Talking Point programme that covers present review of the financial sector and features interviewees who support or propose more changes could be caught by this Bill. There is an exception, as other speakers have noted, of reporting of current events in section 2(3). But, arguably, the show I have imagined goes beyond this protection. It does more than report because it provides opinion as well.

I hope the Minister will consider excluding the subclause and permitting films that discuss current policies, or to allow films directed primarily at reform of existing laws or policies by legal means.

The third detail which concerns me is in the proposed section 2(2)(a) and (2)(b). This is the use of the word "partly". These sub-sections mean that the Bill captures films that are not only wholly but also partly within the definitions. I would urge that the Bill be narrowed to films that are "substantially", rather than "partly". If it is not, a film that is almost wholly innocuous may run foul because of a very short, minor section.

Some may argue that these over-wide definitions can be left to the discretion of the authorities to take care of. And therefore the examples that I have given are moot, TCS film makers will be saved. But I caution against this approach. One function of the law must be to guide people's actions and expectations of future action. Over-wide definitions fail to do this. Instead, they create uncertainty. No one knows whether they are in the wrong, or even if they are, if they will be prosecuted. Giving the authorities excessive discretion does not help the situation. It can lead to perception that our laws are not equal or transparently applied to all. As compared to these over-wide definitions that I have mentioned, I think that the Bill omits mention of the most obvious and acceptable limits to party political films or indeed any free political speech in Singapore, that is, the limits of common good I have mentioned, such as incitement against political order and racial harmony. These should be put into the Bill for clarity and completeness.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, my view is that our democracy thrives on free and fair elections, that all political parties need a chance to reach out to the citizens. Citizens on their part need to hear political parties to decide for themselves. Different means of communication are available, of which I agree film is just one. But though it is just one, I urge the House to consider that with proper licensing and limits, this avenue need not and should not be closed. Public discussion and debate, the ability of politicians to convince and the ability of citizens to discern are things we must all believe in. It is something I have always thought this Government has believed in, and has been very successful at doing. I urge the Minister and this House to apply this approach to party political films. Don't ban them. Convince the citizens.

Dr Yaacob Ibrahim (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. I believe there is a need for us to plug some of the loopholes which have surfaced over the years due to changes in technology as well as to strengthen the deterrent effect of the Act through increased penalties. New provisions to prevent the use of minors in obscene video trafficking are also timely. I believe these provisions dealing with obscene films and videos need no further discussion, as evident in the statements made by Members earlier. However, the Bill also sets forth new provisions dealing with political films and videos.

When assessing this part of the Bill, the basic question that we need to ask is what sort of political life we want for Singapore. There are currently various avenues and ample opportunities for political parties to disseminate their ideas and programmes. Political parties can publish newsletters, books, and periodicals at any time of the year. During election time, they are given air time to broadcast their message and programmes to the Singapore electorate. While there are those who decry the lack of opportunities, I believe political parties do, in fact, have the opportunities to provide Singaporeans with detailed and in-depth information through publications and broadcasts. So the point made by the hon. NMP, Mr Simon Tay, of unequal impact may not bear with altogether.

Yes, I do agree that at first sight the restriction on political videos and films may appear heavy-handed. However, on further reflection, I do believe that Singaporeans would agree that it is better to put the cap on the genie than to let it out of the bottle. Highly visual media such as videos present a greater danger as manipulatory propaganda tools than publications. Visuals can have an impact that far overshadow and even distort the substantive issues or messages raised in a campaign. The excesses of American political campaigning made a very big impression on me during my stay in the US. During the presidential contest between Michael Dukakis and George Bush, the Republicans launched an advertisement which in effect reduced Dukakis' prison reform programmes to that of releasing unrepentant and dangerous prisoners. The famous Willie Horton advertisement highlighted the case of Willie Horton - a prisoner who committed a crime shortly after being released on a weekend furlough programme in Massachusetts, which was the home state of Dukakis. The advertisement was aired continuously throughout the campaign and this led to a significant opinion shift to George Bush. Dukakis' prison programme and crime prevention record as a whole went largely unexamined by the American public.

As the Willie Horton case illustrates, the use of videos can lead to the sensationalisation of issues, reducing the contest of ideas to a process similar to that of selling soap or detergent. I do not think we want political contests in Singapore to go down that road. Yes, we need to protect the Singapore electorate. Yes, there will be those who will argue, such as Mr Simon Tay, that Singaporeans are smart enough to discern the honest leader from the snake oil salesman. But do we really want to take our chances and then have to repair the damages? Even in a mature democracy such as the US, slick political advertising can mislead the electorate. I would rather that we take proactive steps to ensure that sensationalism and demagogic appeals have no place in our political process. At the same time, we must also ensure that Singaporeans have adequate means of examining political parties and their programmes for themselves. Parties can now publish newsletters, books and periodicals to disseminate their ideas, programmes or opinions on current policies. Parties can also broadcast their local messages during election time. These dissemination opportunities need to be kept open and protected to ensure a healthy contest of ideas. This amendment is, in fact, a reflection of an ongoing process in our society. As society changes and new technology develops, we would need to re-examine our regulatory framework for political discourse. This re-examination will need to seek the proper balance between the need to provide political parties with the opportunity to disseminate the ideas and stimulate political discussion and the need to prevent the McDonaldization of political campaigning.

Sir, even though I support this amendment, I do have some concerns. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, we are moving towards a more participatory-style of Government. It is an attempt to involve more people at all levels in order to create a thinking nation. Given this new thrust or attempt to create a more participatory political culture, we should ensure that any legislation must be clear and precise in setting the parameters of unacceptable political activities. We must ensure that non-partisan groups, such as those raised by Mr Chew Heng Ching, which can make a positive contribution to policy-making are not frozen out of the process.

The regulation of political life is not borne out of a desire to simply restrict political discussion. Rather, regulations are needed to ensure that the Singapore electorate is given a fair and honest chance to examine parties and their manifestoes and ideas. If we allow parties to use videos, we endanger what we have achieved thus far in our political life. Do we really want this?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Dr Toh See Kiat: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me say, at the outset, that I support the Films (Amendment) Bill.

Modern technology allows for the production of films which is a result of camera tricks and, worse, the digital manipulation of figures and pictures. We have seen the movie Forrest Gump in which the actor Tom Hanks is seen in the film very realistically shaking hands with dead Presidents and former Presidents of the USA. We have seen other examples of digital manipulation of advertisements in which a very plump lady suddenly becomes very slim. And I think we also have seen examples, even without digital manipulation, of pictures which appear to present certain ideas and these ideas obviously are false. It could, for example, make a person look sinister under certain lightings and you could then persuade the audience that this is a sinister person and in the political broadcast, it would be to persuade people not to elect him.

It is therefore prudent and cautious of us to exclude a medium like this from the hurly-burly of politics and that we should restrict political debate to arenas that can be controlled, in the sense that publications and rally speeches can be controlled. There will always be opportunities for rebuttal and there will be no opportunities for making manipulated pictures like that.

In my work as the President of the Consumers' Association of Singapore, very often we have to deal with advertisements, particularly TV commercials, which we find objectionable because they make certain allusions or present certain pictures which lead the viewer into wrong conclusions. But very often, when we approach the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore to pull off the advertisement, the sale has been clinched and it is too late for us to stop it. We can actually pull off the advertisement but, as they say, the harm is already done. So I support this Bill to keep political debate to arenas that we are familiar with.

Nevertheless, I have some points which I hope the Minister will clarify. Firstly, clause 2(b) introduces a new definition of "electronic transmission". I see that this definition excludes "broadcasting". Unlike the Undesirable Publications (Amendment) Bill passed at the last sitting of this House, there is no definition of "broadcasting" here. In our laws, there is the definition in the Copyright Act and a definition of sorts in the Singapore Broadcasting Authority (SBA) Act. The Copyright Act definition is slightly archaic as it refers to "broadcasting by wireless telegraphy". The SBA Act is more up-to-date. I would take it that the meaning of "broadcasting" here is the same as that in the more modern SBA Act. Whichever definition is adopted, however, I believe the new Bill does not appear to cover the use of telecommunication lines to do a computerised "broadcast" to all Internet users, for example, which should be an act penalised under this new Bill if the films or pictures sent are obscene or of an unauthorised political nature.

Secondly, clause 2(f) introduces a definition of "supply". I know the Minister has said that it is an adaptation from the New Zealand provision. With due respect, Sir, I find this definition verbose and incomprehensible. I would like to commend the use of plain English in statutes and hope that more care will be put into drafting such legal provisions in future.

Thirdly, clause 2(d) gives a new definition to "obscene". I have discussed at length my views on "obscenity" in the earlier debate on the Undesirable Publications (Amendment) Bill and received an answer from the Minister and so I will not repeat them here.

Next, I would turn to clause 2(g). This paragraph inserts a new subsection (2) to section 2 of the principal Films Act. A film is directed to a political end if it is, inter alia, "intended or likely to affect voting in any election or national referendum". I fear the words are overly broad. There are all sorts of elections in Singapore, including elections at annual general meetings of societies and companies and elections on residents' views in relation to upgrading projects and perhaps even elections to choose popular TV commercials. I know the Minister probably has in mind Parliamentary and Presidential elections only and would ask if he could amend or clarify this accordingly. All the other references to "any election" in the new subsection (2)(b) should also be similarly construed.

A film dealing with "an issue of public controversy" is also political under the amendment Bill. In most instances, this may be right. Yet, with utmost respect, Sir, I think the words are again over-broad. The question whether cloning of humans should be made illegal is "an issue of public controversy"; so too is the question whether owners of pets who take long holidays should be allowed to leave their pets unattended. Would films on these topics be political? I submit that they are not. For the avoidance of doubt, the Minister may wish to clarify this point.

Additionally, could the Minister also consider amending or clarifying the provisions of the new subsection (3) which states that films solely for the purpose of reporting current events are not political. I expect this would, of course, cover the broadcast and the filming of election rallies and other political events as news. But I would like to argue that films "discussing" current events (and not merely "reporting" them), such as TV talk shows, or shows which contain obviously unbiased material in an attempt to inform or educate the public (as in many documentaries we see), are also not political. I await the Minister's views on these points.

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I totally support the banning of obscene films and the levy of harsh penalties on offenders in order to protect our young. I am concerned, however, by the aspect of the Bill which seeks to define and then prohibit production and dissemination of what is called "party political film".

I have several specific concerns. Let me elaborate. My first concern is about the definition of what constitutes a party political film. There seems to be two components. The first is obvious, a film made by or on behalf of a political party or a group advertising its views. The second component is far more ambiguous and disturbing to me. The second definition of a party political film is if "it is made by any person and directed towards any political end in Singapore". The term "directed towards any political end" is further defined to include specific examples, most of which relate to elections and can quite arguably be considered party politics. However, a film which "contains wholly or partly either partisan or biased references to or comments on any political matter, including but not limited to a current policy of the Government or an issue of public controversy in Singapore" is defined as "a film which is directed towards any political end" and is therefore prohibited. That, I submit, is far too broad, Sir.

What is biased and what is not biased? What is a political matter and an unpolitical matter? An issue of public controversy at one time was the COE policy. Another time was the levy on the foreign maids. Only recently, it was housing prices. Are these not political matters? And what about the current policy of the Government? Can anything be more all encompassing than this definition? The concern of the drafters of this Bill surely cannot be trying to stifle films which legitimately and constructively comment on Singapore society. After all, the Government actively encourages the development of a local film industry. On the one hand, we complain that Singaporeans are politically apathetic and the young people are not committed to this society. We want to develop a vibrant cultural scene where Singaporeans can develop art forms, including film, which have contemporary relevance. But under this amendment, any so-called biased reference to a current policy of Government or an issue of public controversy will be banned. We all know that what constitutes "right" or "wrong", "biased" or "non-partisan" can be a less than objective exercise or evaluation, and the evaluation depends on who says it, when and with what intention.

How is the mechanism of evaluation carried out anyway? From what I understand, this Bill does not disallow the making of a film by any individual nor does it require any film-maker to submit a story line and film script prior to production to the Ministry for approval. Film-makers therefore risked their money, time and talent on a production which may raise public controversy after it was screened. How would the Ministry respond to this?

Whether a film will raise a political controversy in society is an uncertain and, often times, unintended outcome on the part of the producer. Even if it recognises the possibility of political tensions from such a film, it is more difficult to assess its degree of seriousness to justify its ban. What may result is an unhealthy situation of individuals, film producers, political party members as well as political institutions making allegations against one another and defending their positions on different reasons. We do not want to be drawn into this kind of unguided judgement battles. Not that such allegations will not be made under this existing Bill, but the amendments now proposed only give more room for contentious interpretations. Moreover, the offender is liable to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

In our effort to promote the arts, Sir, the spectre of a hefty fine, due to many "possible" wrongful allegations can be daunting. I appreciate the Government's need to establish reasonable limits to self-censorship within the artistic community, but we need to offset this against an equally important need for Singaporeans to free their imagination and intellect to create without ambiguous restrictions. I do not believe that our top leaders are intolerant or afraid of criticisms. They can hold their own in any debate against any of Singapore's detractors. That makes me all the more perplexed as to why this Bill needs to have such a broad definition of "party political films". Is this not giving unnecessary broad powers to bureaucrats who will want to err on the side of caution and end up banning any social commentary in our home-made film industry? I am afraid the lack of clear guidelines and definitional criteria will paralyze appropriate exercise of judgment and, worse, it cripples creative effort in our young and stifles quite legitimate and constructive commentary on Singapore society.

Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has once said, on the subject of financial deregulation, that previously what was not expressly permitted was prohibited must now change to what is not expressly prohibited is permitted. I believe that what applies to the finance industry in Singapore should apply to the film industry. I am afraid the amendments to the Act create a situation which is what is not expressly prohibited is also not permitted.

I would like to make a specific proposal that the definition of "party political film" be more realistically defined so that it can only refer to films made by political parties or groups and on specific issues related to electoral matters and that broad catch-all reference such as current policies of Government or issues of public controversies be deleted. In any Bill to prohibit an activity, I believe it is the onus of the drafters to be as precise and specific as possible and not to cover themselves by including everything under the sun. It is convenient to do so but it would only impede the development of an open and civil society. For me, self-censorship is a necessary civic function but it must be exercised based on knowledge and acceptance of terms of the contract, not out of fear and muddled understanding.

Another matter which I feel that the Films Act could also address is violence, and the question of harm to children. I would like to suggest that the Censorship Board broadens its scope to include the issue of violence in films and to develop a classification scheme to define "acceptable" and "not acceptable" portrayals of violence on the screen. I am concerned that violent scenes have become more graphic and brutal. However, there is inadequate research on the extent to which the prevalence of violence depiction desensitizes the public. There is reasonable ground to fear that children are vulnerable victims because they are immature and more easily led into committing copycat behaviour of violent portrayals in films. It is important that this Bill allows the Government to establish clear guidelines to ban obscene films as well as political films which have a negative impact on social cohesion, but violent films which have no regard for women, children and the higher ideals of the human condition must also be regulated, because they only degrade our sense of decency, impoverish our moral universe and fray the social fabric. This is not a gracious and gentle society which we promised for the people of Singapore.

I hope the Minister will seriously reconsider the amendments to this Act and if need to, perhaps, in the interest of the public, subject it to a Select Committee for review and recommendations, to give Singaporeans an opportunity to question their own civic identity by airing their views on the limits of State control vis-a-vis individual rights and responsibility. This may be a significant political and social agenda on community building as we enter the 21st century.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not support the Bill as it is.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity. At the outset, I would like to disclose my interest. I am a member of the Indian PAC which is chaired by Mr S. Dhanabalan.

Sir, the Bill introduces a new area, namely, political films which are subject to the purview of this Bill. I wonder why the need to have this area legislated. I share the concerns shown by the other NMPs and I will not repeat them. Political parties still could hold rallies and speak their mind during the election, and yet they have to be subjected to this law if they were to produce a film with a political end.

Sir, as a people and as a government, I think we can take pride, and I say this seriously and even the opposition parties will agree, that we have the most fair elections anywhere in the world. Issues are debated openly and the voters have the right to choose. I think we should preserve this. In other countries, violence and money politics take the front stage.

We have, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, started building a participatory democracy. Civil organisations are growing up. Even the Straits Times' Forum page, compared to, say, 20 years ago, has more serious issues debated. On Saturday, the political page Insight deals with current issues in some depth. It airs the views of the various leaders and the man-in-the-street. There will be criticisms of this Bill from some quarters, especially the Western press. I think there will be some criticisms by Singaporeans that this Bill is going to silence the opposition.

Sir, the definition of "political end" cannot be exhaustive. I agree. But the definition, as it stands, is very wide. I do not have any notion whether any other country has got similar legislation. And in the absence of other judicial authorities, our courts would have to evolve our own law and it will take some time for the law to be settled.

Meanwhile, the question that has to be asked and answered is this: are we sending the wrong signals to Singaporeans that we are becoming less tolerant of political dissent? We have seen a slow nurturing of civic bodies whose aim is to get the community involved in decision making and to provide a valuable link to the policy makers. In fact, two of the NMPs in this House have come from this background. The question that we have to ask is: what would happen if one of the civic bodies were to make a film to educate its members?

Under the Bill, a film which has got a political end is subject to the control of the law, even if only a small part of the film is likely to affect voting in any election. This is indeed very restrictive. Even a civic group which intends to educate its members may run foul of the law. Unlike the other Members, I have no contention with the second part of the definition which tries to contain partisan or biased comments. I think the judge will be in a position to decide.

There are other concerns, Mr Speaker, Sir, which I would like to highlight in the House. Whilst the definition of "obscene" is something of a question of judgment value, I hope that the officials dealing with the matter would be a little bit more liberal in the definition. Value judgment and question of morality change from society to society and from age to age. What was decadent sometime ago may not be so now in the light of new attributes. Although the fine line between what is work of art and what is yellow culture may be strained, we should try to be more accommodating.

My other concern is on the Committee of Appeal. The present members are distinguished people with very rich backgrounds. We have a young poet, banker, architect, accountant and people from the academia.

Sir, it is a credit to the Minister that he need not have amended this section. The Minister could have allowed the membership to remain at nine and then reduce the quorum from five to three, which is a respectable number in most panels and tribunals. Even our Court of Appeal has three members. It just goes to show that the Minister is sincerely concerned with the decision-making process and to make it more transparent. I think this House should applaud this action by the Minister. I welcome the increase in the number and I hope the Minister would include retired lawyers, civil servants and community leaders who could provide valuable inputs in this decision-making process.

Sir, I read yesterday's Straits Times and I appreciate the arguments and sentiments by Koh Buck Song in the editorial page. But I think the quorum should perhaps be increased from five to seven for cases which are controversial, but not in all cases. But for cases which are of public interest, it should be increased. It should be left to the discretion of the Committee's Chairman or Vice-Chairman.

Sir, there is another area which I would urge the Minister to consider and this is on the appointment of two Vice-Chairmen, instead of the present practice of choosing by the members themselves when the Chairman or Vice-Chairman is not available.

Sir, I think we should institutionalise the Committee of Appeal's work. In landmark cases, it should give its grounds which should be published. By doing so, the public and the trade would know the view of the Committee of Appeal.

Sir, I am also concerned that the fines have been increased excessively. I support the move to increase the fines but not in the way it has been done. I think we have overdone it. Let me give the House an example. Under new section 29(4)(b), the maximum fine is $100,000. We all know that the courts normally do not impose the maximum fine, but they always bear in mind the quantum laid by Parliament, and in this case, it is $100,000. When we compare the fine imposed in more serious crimes under the Penal Code, this House will realise that the proposed fine is excessive.

The other area I am concerned is the definition of young persons, which I do not think any of the Members has raised. So I will raise it here. I think we should start a new definition of a young person as anybody who is above the age of 12 instead of 14. Most secondary students have the mental and physical attributes which their parents 30 years ago may not have. I wonder why the Minister wants to conform to the traditional definitions of young person.

In any case, I must congratulate him for giving the protection to young people. Under the proposed law, they would not be exploited and abused. This is to be welcomed. As the Minister has pointed out, flyers and all sorts of literature appear in letter boxes both in HDB estates and even in private residential estates.

Sir, there is another area which I would like the Minister to consider. Both Tamil and Hindi films seem to have a great deal of violence and obscenities, not pictorial obscenities but in the words used. The fact that the Indian censors have cleared the film must not lull our Board of Censors. Some of the words, especially in Hindi, are indeed obscene and cannot be mentioned. Not related to this, but I would like to touch on, is the question whether we want our women to be treated in the fashion that some of the Indian films portray. Sir, the Indian PAC has conveyed its views to the Minister about television programmes but censorship does not come under our purview. I hope the Minister will take this into consideration. Whilst SINDA and the Indian community are trying hard to uplift the Indian community, the Indian films are our biggest drawback.

Sir, Mr Simon Tay has mentioned that we are here not to support the Government or the opposition. We are here, chosen by Parliament, to give our views independently so that the decision-making process of this Parliament would be easier.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I must first question the sweeping statement of the NMP when he said that Singapore has the fairest election in the world. I wonder whether he has stood in any of the elections in Singapore, especially on the opposition side. Standing as a bystander and observing from the outside, surely he cannot get the full picture. Until he has stood in an election, he has got no right to make such a sweeping statement.

Sir, I cannot support this Bill because the part on banning party political films is purely political. It has got nothing to do with public good or the public interest. Its purpose is to give more advantage to the ruling party at the elections and to ensure that the PAP shall never lose its majority in every election. I can support the part of the Bill disallowing the exhibition and trade in obscene films as they tend to deprave and corrupt members of the public, especially young Singaporeans. Therefore, banning of obscene films is for the public good and the public interest is served. I support that part of the Bill. But banning party political films is another matter altogether.

How does banning party political films help to promote public good or public interest? In fact, it is just the opposite. The public, especially in Singapore, hardly know anything about the opposition. They only see and hear and read PAP news. Anyone who turns on the news on our local television cannot fail to see and hear anything but PAP news. PAP Ministers' and Members' public activities are prominently broadcast. Anyone watching local television would think that there are no activities organised by the opposition MPs at all.

At Potong Pasir, I organise between five and seven public activities every year. Our Lantern Festival attracts about 1,000 participants every year. As for the Kite Flying Day, there are usually about 200 to 250 persons who come to join in this very delightful activity. None of these activities organised at Potong Pasir over the last 12 years have been reported in the local press or over television. Now there are new technologies like the videos and the CD-ROMs which can give a chance for the opposition to make known their views and activities, but the Government, with this Bill, is quick to clamp down on the use of this new technology by the opposition. Any progressive Singaporean would welcome all new technologies and make use of them to the fullest advantage. But in Singapore the situation is different. New technologies are only good if they are to advance the cause of the PAP and not the opposition. This message is loud and clear with the implementation of this Bill when it becomes law. There is no half measure as far as the Government is concerned. They want to make sure that the opposition is completely deprived of new technologies to advance their cause.

The punishment meted out for disobeying the law is a very heavy penalty of a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. This punishment is even more onerous than the ones meted out for first time aggravated offence in connection with dealings in obscene films where children and young persons are involved. For the first timers of aggravated offences involving children and young persons, the upper limit of the fine is only $80,000, and the maximum prison sentence is 12 months. As compared to the first time offenders in relation to party political films, the maximum fine is $100,000. As I said, the maximum jail is two years.

There is in fact no need to impose such heavy fines and jail sentences for offenders of party political films. A fine of $2,000 or a jail sentence of six months would suffice. Since the whole matter is political, the intention of this part of the Bill is for the Government to neutralise the opposition parties. This can be achieved by stopping opposition members from taking part in elections by fining them just a mere $2,000 or six months' jail, if they are caught involved in dealing with party political films.

Under the Singapore Constitution, once a person is fined $2,000 or jailed six months, he is banned from taking part in any parliamentary elections for a period of five years. So a fine of $2,000 or a jail of six months is a sufficient deterrent in regard to party political films. The present punishment is out of proportion and is really uncalled for. These heavy fines and jail sentences only indicate that the ruling party suffers real weaknesses. They think that if the opposition have a chance to use party political films they can win even more seats in Parliament or even topple the PAP if such new technologies can be exploited by the opposition to the fullest. That is why draconian punishments are meted out to completely deprive the opposition of using new technologies to advance their cause.

Is the use of new technologies by the opposition something bad? I do not think so. I can think of at least five reasons why party political films should be allowed. Firstly, the public will have the advantage of more than one point of view. Every day, for 365 days a year, and year after year, from one general election to the next and continued non-stop, Singaporeans are bombarded with PAP news. It is high time that the Government opened up and allowed more than one point of view. Singaporeans should be given an opportunity to hear not one or two points of views, but a diversity of views. I believe Singaporeans are intelligent and mature enough to know what is good for Singapore. They are discerning people and can accept the point of view that is best for Singapore and for them.

It has been said that with party political films, the opposition can give wrong information or misinformation. If they really do that, they will in fact be shooting their own feet with a gun. Because if they are found out, their whole credibility will go and they will never get elected again. So I do not think that they will dare to be so irresponsible. There should be no fear of allowing Singaporeans to watch and hear party political films. If Singaporeans are forced to hear and accept only one point of view, very soon an absolute tyranny will develop in Singapore. Further, the PAP is not always right. The stop-at-two policy is a glaring example.

Secondly, it is a shame if new technologies cannot be used to the fullest. Singapore encourages its people to be creative and innovative. It would appear that the mood now is that should any more new technologies be invented, they cannot be used by the opposition to their advantage, but only by the PAP. This kind of values promulgated by the PAP is definitely retrogressive and unfair.

This Bill only retards the growth of creativity and innovativeness. Politics is not something dirty like obscene films, and Singapore should be given a free rein to indulge in politics using new technologies. The Government should have no fear because the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and the defamatory and sedition laws are still all in place and the Internal Security Act has not yet been abolished. The only harm that can be done by the opposition or Singaporeans generally using party political films is to the PAP and not to Singapore. I hasten to say that the PAP is not Singapore. If the opposition is given a climate whereby they can grow and attract good men, in time they too can be just as good as the ruling party. But with this kind of a Bill that is before us, such a climate I speak of shall never come about.

The third reason why party political films should be allowed is because there are vast numbers of Singaporeans who shall oppose this Bill. There are already two opposition-held constituencies at Hougang and Potong Pasir. The majority of people at these two constituencies shall surely oppose this Bill since they have already voted for the opposition.

In many of the constituencies that were contested, the votes polled by the opposition were over 40%. Generally, we can safely say that about 40% of the voters in Singapore would definitely oppose the banning of party political films since they are not against the opposition. In the results at the first poll for the Elected President, there were about 40% of the voters who did not vote for the Government candidate. I would think that they too would be against this move to ban party political films. Indeed, if those parts of the Bill concerning banning party political films were to be put to a referendum, my view is that the Government may just not get what it wants.

The fourth reason why party political films should not be banned is because the Government is setting double standards by implementing this Bill. The Government, under the new section 2(3), is allowed to broadcast party political films through the mass media because the purpose of which is purportedly the reporting of current events. Therefore, at election time, under this section, the Government can report all their members' election speeches and election activities through the local television and radio as current events. At the same time, opposition members shall not benefit from such wide coverage unless, of course, the news are bad about the opposition. By this Bill, the playing field is further tilted to the advantage of the PAP in coming elections.

The fifth reason for not allowing the banning of party political films is that it is one more step to discourage political awareness among Singaporeans. The Bill also further gives an impression to our young citizens that discussing opposition politics is something to be avoided because normally a government would only ban something which is bad for the people. And by banning party political films which is really aimed at the opposition, the people of Singapore will also have the impression that films made by the opposition must be bad. They are to be lumped together with obscene films. Obscene films are actually worlds apart from party political films. Yet they are lumped together in this Bill.

I strongly object to the passing of this Bill banning party political films. On record, by the votes cast at the last general elections, there are almost 50% of those who voted shall be against this Bill as it stands. On this line, I would say that there are very good grounds to send this Bill to a Select Committee and I call upon the Minister to do so.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Mr Speaker, Sir, could I have a clarification from Mr Chiam? He said that one has to stand for election to know whether the elections are fair. I think he is wrong. In fact, the public of Singapore, the 3 million people, know what is a fair election. Is he saying to the House that he came to this House by unfair election?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am sorry that the NMP has to ask me to clarify. The best thing is actually for him to take part in an election. Then he will know the difficulties as regards election rallies, putting up election posters, party broadcast time, and as regards the Police who are always about. There are many things that he does not know and I think it is best for him to stand in an election. Then let him say whether we have the most fair elections in the world.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Films (Amendment) Bill clearly provides for anyone who produces, distributes or exhibits any party political film to be fined up to $100,000 or imprisoned for as long as two years. The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) once produced a video film but it was banned from distribution by the Government.

This Bill further deprives the Opposition of the right to make use of other media to reach out to the people in order to express their views on the nation, society and the Government. However, the Bill also provides that films covering current affairs shall not fall under the category of political films. Then, the People's Action Party (PAP) will not be affected, because the PAP can make use of the current affairs programmes on the television channels to send their signals effectively to the people at any time. The real purpose of this Bill is not just to prevent the opposition from producing and distributing films or video which are not in the interest of the PAP, but more importantly, it is designed to block out the unfavourable comment on the PAP by any foreign media.

As such, the real question is whether this Amendment Bill covers also the TV broadcast relayed by Singapore Cable Vision (SCV). We all know that SCV will eventually reach out to each and every household in Singapore. SCV relays TV programmes from other countries. Some of these may contain the views of people from other countries on Singapore, particularly some comments on policy matters, or on the way in which the PAP rules Singapore.

The PAP introduces this Amendment Bill just as the people of Singapore are beginning to avail themselves of some different views and comments from SCV. In clause 2 of this Bill, the definition of political films is very wide. Any film that touches on any of the Government's policy, controversial issues, or comments on any political matters shall be deemed to be a party political film. In future, if SCV is to telecast any of these films, or any programme containing unfavourable comments or criticism on the PAP, will it then be committing an offence?

The Government has been telling the people of Singapore that our information is open. Our people can tune in to foreign TV programmes through SCV. However, after this Bill is passed, if SCV is to telecast any programme that contains unfavourable comments on the PAP which are considered to be biased, and the officer-in-charge is accordingly found to be guilty of an offence, then is this what the PAP Government mean by saying our information is open?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, my concern, of course, is with that part of the Bill that seeks to shut out any film of a political activity in Singapore. I have no quarrel with the amendments proposed to punish exhibitors of pornographic films, and particularly child pornography.

I wonder, Mr Speaker, Sir, how many people outside this House were aware, before the House sat today, that this Government intends to categorise a political activity, and that is, making a film on political issues, and thereby educating our citizens into greater awareness, with obscenity and lewdness. I find this totally inexplicable, that the Government should try and lump a particular form of political activity with obscenity and lewd films. And that is made clear, if you look at one of these clauses, that is, clause 11, which seeks to amend section 35(1) of the Films Act. And the amendment is that instead of the word "lewd", you insert "a party political film". So a party political film would appear to be in the minds of the Government to be the same as a lewd film.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to repeat what has been said before. I am not going to go over the definitions in this Bill. To me, it is not just a question of amending the definitions and curtailing the impact of this total ban on a form of political activity in Singapore. The whole thing is totally unnecessary, with or without any amendment, and any amendment is not going to make it any better.

The Minister, in introducing the Bill and in attempting to justify the ban, says a video-tape which contains issues that concern Singaporeans may be emotional and perhaps move them to action. What the Minister forgets, and the PAP forgets, is that politics is an emotional matter. People are moved by political decisions that are made by the Government. They do not remain cold and impassive to a decision made by the Government. Some are moved very deeply by a decision of the Government. Is that wrong? Is that to be dismissed as simply that they are emotional? So I cannot understand this justification that a videotape which tries to bring to the citizens any issues that concern them, and politics is simply nothing but discussion of issues that concern the people, that it is emotional. Politics concerns the body politic. It covers everyone. So if there is any issue that concerns them, then it is politics. And so I cannot accept the attempt made to justify the ban on the ground that people may be moved.

Secondly, what is forgotten is that our citizens have to be educated on issues, and a videotape or a film is perhaps the most effective way to educate our citizens on political issues. It is quite clear that our Government in Singapore has no intention and has no wish to educate our citizens politically. All they are concerned with is to drive home to our citizens their message, their goals, regardless of whether it is good for Singaporeans or not. And as a result of all these, for the last 30 years, this drone of Government propaganda is churned out over the TV every night, churned out over the radio, and our people have become resigned, as the former Deputy Prime Minister of this Government said, to hearing nothing else but PAP propaganda, and they are unable to make any judgement on whether what the PAP proposes is good for the society or not. That clearly is what the PAP wants. There is no question about it.

The second justification made by the Minister is that there is already an arena for serious political discussion. I really wonder whether the Minister has thought about what he is saying that there are enough opportunities provided in Singapore for political discussion. The PAP's record, ever since it took power in 1959, is one to stamp out political discussion, to stamp out any raising of issues by people who feel concerned about what is happening in the society. Why has this Government continued and strengthened the Internal Security Act when previously there was an appeal to an independent board from any detention? This Government took away that appeal and so it has a very effective tool in silencing any discussion on politics in Singapore. As I said, the record of this Government is one of deliberate and systematic suppression of any political debate or discussion in Singapore.

Politics has become a dirty word in Singapore, and we see it here, it is to be lumped with obscenity. That is the place for politics in Singapore, not anywhere else. After the PAP took power in 1959, they began a deliberate and systematic suppression of the institutions in Singapore that may provide opportunities for political discussion and debate. I do not propose to dwell at length on this track record of the PAP. But I wish to highlight to Singaporeans the principal ways in which they went about this. The trade unions were brought under control. Trade unions were not allowed to express any views on issues that concerned the people at large. The trade union movement was put under a man of their own party who was brought out from Malaysia to lead the trade union movement. And after him, the trade union movement has been put into the care of a Cabinet Minister. So what freedom was there left for trade unions to express their views on matters that concern the society?

Then there was the press. At one time, Mr Speaker, Sir, there was some freedom in the press. It tried to be a responsible press. I recall that, before the 1959 elections, when the then Secretary-General of the People's Action Party was threatening fire and thunder against the press because he thought they would be advocating wrong ideas, they sent their representative to Helsinki to protest against this intention announced by the Secretary-General. But after the PAP took over, by a number of manoeuvres, the press have now become mere propaganda agents for the Government. What real opportunities are there for serious political issues to be debated or advocated through the press? We have in the Party sent a number of press releases, I have written a number of letters and a substantial number of them never see the light of day. It is probably because they all have got to be cleared first. So the press have ceased to play any part in providing a forum for political discussion.

Then there is the clamp down on professional and religious organisations. One by one the professional bodies were told, "You are not to concern yourself with any issues that may concern Singaporeans. You are only to concern yourself with matters that affect your members." And so the Legal Profession (Amendment) Act was passed which forbade the Law Society from commenting on any Bill that was to be presented to Parliament unless the Bill had first been sent to them for their comments. And then there were the religious bodies. Now we have the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and under which any cleric can lose his licence if he dares to comment on any issue that may concern the Government. It is again based on the fallacy that religion and politics are two distinct and different things, forgetting that religion has to do with the citizen's views and attitudes to the society around him. That is what politics is all about. So you cannot divorce religion from politics.

Then there was the onslaught against the opposition political parties. It is very difficult for anyone who has not been in any opposition party to know the difficulties and problems that are put in the way of opposition parties. We are not allowed any public meetings other than the meetings perhaps on National Day or Labour Day.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, can I ask you to be relevant to the Bill under discussion?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am dealing with suppression of political activities. This is one of them.

Mr Speaker: I think you are taking it a bit too far. Can I ask you to get to the Bill?

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right, Mr Speaker, Sir. What I am attempting to say is that this amendment drives another nail into the coffin, an attempt to kill all political activities in Singapore. That is what I am attempting to say here, that one by one, all political activities are being killed off in Singapore. And it may not be very long before we have another Bill presented to this House which will perhaps even prohibit the publication by a political party of any newspaper or journal because it may contain issues concerning the people which might arouse their emotions. I can see that coming with this Bill that seeks to ban films put out by a political party to educate the people on any issues in Singapore.

The speakers who spoke after the Minister also made a number of assumptions which I do question. As Mr Chiam has already pointed out, an assumption is made that elections in Singapore are free and fair. Knowing how elections are held in other countries and how elections are held in Singapore, may I say that elections in Singapore are not free and fair. They are anything but free and fair.

Then again the assumption made by a number of speakers, that there are other areas for serious discussion. But no attempt is made to try and define where these areas exist. There are no areas for public discussion of issues in Singapore. Has the PAP made any attempt to call a public meeting of citizens to discuss any policy or Bill that they propose to bring into Parliament? Have we heard of any such meeting or read of any such meeting? This Bill and the way it has been introduced demonstrates that only too clearly. This is a momentous decision, to stop one form of political activity.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, you are engaging in tedious repetition. If you have nothing new to say, could you end your speech?

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right, Mr Speaker, Sir. What I will say to the Government is this. Why do we not be honest? Why does the Government, the PAP, not say that our brand of democracy - because that is what it has often said - that Singapore's democracy is something quite different. Our brand of democracy will not permit opposition political parties to put forward their views, unless the views conform to what we say are the stated goals and objectives. Then at least one can say that the Government is being honest about it.

At the moment, a lot of Singapore is pure pretense, pretense that we have got democracy, pretense that people are allowed free discussion on matters that concern them, pretense that we have a responsible press, pretense that we have a responsible trade union movement.

This amendment Bill seeks only to strengthen the PAP's hold on Singapore, and that clearly seems to be the object despite all the high-sounding words that have been said to justify the amendment to ban all party political films.

BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is our brand of democracy that has enabled the NCMP to be here in this House to speak on this Bill. He opposed the NCMP provision, in case we forget. He lost in the election at Cheng San.

Mr Jeyaretnam: How did I lose?

BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: He came in here because of a provision we made to ensure that there will always be a lively debate in this House, and for which I think we are all happy that he has spoken his piece, somewhat tediously perhaps, but still by the extreme way he has presented his views, he has helped to clarify the landscape. Now our main positions have emerged and everything else in between are details.

Sir, I am very grateful to many Members of the House for spending time looking into the details of the Bill. I have no doubt that all those who spoke spent a lot of time checking the Bill, the original Act, looking for inconsistencies, checking definitions in the Bill with definitions in other Acts. It shows how important this Act is to us.

Before I touch on the rather controversial amendment on party political films, let me first clarify some of the other issues which were raised. By and large, Members supported the other amendments, but there were some questions raised which I feel I ought to respond to.

Mr Chew Heng Ching asked whether the threat to forfeit all or part of the deposit might somehow inhibit the growth of the film industry. Not at all. The purpose is a practical one. It is in response to a practical problem. Ever since we introduced R(A) rating in our cinemas, we have required cinema operators to check the ICs of young people who buy tickets to ensure that they are above 21 before they can watch R(A) rated movies. Sometimes they have been lax and young people have gotten in. So this is to ensure that they can be fined, that a penalty can be imposed upon them when they have not kept to the conditions of their licence. It is an administrative thing, a provision which we have not had in the past. The only recourse we had in the past was between giving them a warning and withdrawing their licence, and we felt we needed something in between.

A number of MPs asked whether the proposed changes would somehow stifle the arts or stifle the growth of the film industry. Not at all. In fact, what we have tried to do is to clarify a particular area about which I will talk in greater detail later. But our objective remains the same, which is to promote the arts and to promote the film industry. In fact, it is the plan of the Ministry of Information and the Arts to form a Films Commission under the National Arts Council specifically to help promote the growth and prosperity of the film industry. Films like Twelve Storeys will not be affected.

The same process of consultation between BFC and the trade will continue. If you are not sure whether a film will infringe censorship guidelines, you can consult the censors. They will give you advice. They will say, "These are the benchmarks. These are the things we have allowed in the past. These are the things we have disallowed. So please adjust accordingly." And we also have a system for classification.

Whether films to educate members of the public produced by Ministries will be affected, no. It is clear in the Bill that Government films are exempted from the provisions of the Act.

Dr Toh See Kiat asked some questions about definitions. "Election" is separately defined in the beginning of the Bill to make it clear that it does not refer to elections for private clubs or whatever.

The definition of "broadcasting" is the dictionary definition, which is if you broadcast programmes, television or radio, by wireless or by cable. It is a simple definition. It suits our purpose. There is no need to define it at this point in time more clearly. Internet broadcast will be covered under the Singapore Broadcasting Act. These are some of the clarifications which I owe Members.

I would now like to talk about the special amendment to ban party political films. In 1996, around March, Dr Chee Soon Juan of the SDP wrote to BFC to ask whether he required a licence to distribute political videos. BFC said yes. Then he submitted an application. This is the first time anything of this sort had happened in Singapore. For those Members who talked about this restriction somehow affecting fair and free elections in Singapore, we have had free and fair elections all these years in the pre-video age. I do not think with or without this provision, it will affect substantially the way elections are conducted in Singapore.

The Chairman of the Board of Film Censors, sensing that this is a new area, referred the matter to the Ministry and asked for policy guidance. There were two approaches we could have taken. We could have allowed political films. If we had allowed party political films for the SDP, then naturally the Workers' Party and the PAP would all have jumped in. Right through the nine-day campaign period, we would all be busy putting on make-up, combing our hair, dressing up, appearing in political videos and distributing them to Singaporeans in order to win votes. Or we could say, do we want everybody to jump into this new medium? The question we have to ask ourselves is: will this new medium improve democracy in Singapore or degrade it?

The advantage of having a debate in this House is that there is an immediate encounter. A point is raised, a point is rebutted. Views are immediately clarified. The media is up there to report on everything that is happening.

You do a political video, we worry about sound bites. We watch the tone of our voice. We smarten ourselves up. We distribute. You distribute. To whom? I do not know. We distribute. To whom? You do not know. After a while, members of the public, receiving all these versions, will develop a very cynical view of who we are. We are not film stars. We are not TCS stars. We are here elected by the people of Singapore to discuss serious matters. And when we have a debate, let us have an encounter, a meeting.

If you object about something written about you in the newspapers, you write in to rebut. You write something scurrilous or libelous in a political newspaper, the offended party can require you to clarify, if a case can be put up to the judges.

On television, do we really want political parties to have the right to buy commercials? You know how expensive TV airtime is. In America, before you think about running for elections, you first ask yourself, "Can I raise the money?" And the financial hurdle is enormous.

We are a small city state. Even if there were a massive power failure and there is no television and the telephone lines are dead, within a few hours, from one end of the island to the other, from Changi to Tuas, the grapevine will operate. Singaporeans are not ignorant. How could we be where we are now as a major financial trading centre in the world if we are an ignorant people, if we are as suppressed the way Mr J B Jeyaretnam would have us believe?

But if we allow this medium, what happens? We will all become entrepreneurial. There will be any number of PR men in Singapore or foreign consultants offering their services to us. You know, in America, it is an industry and they are very good at it. It is an art form. They will teach us all kinds of new tricks, how we should sit down, how we should look when the TV camera pans at us, how many seconds of sound bites we should plan for, what kind of particular spin to give to every political ball that we kick.

It is not good for the political process in Singapore. We will reduce it to the selling of detergent. Every evening, when we watch the television, toothpaste, detergents, soaps, hamburgers, any number of reasons attractively put across. With ditties our children are able to reproduce with accuracy.

If the quality of our democracy in Singapore is reduced to that, our democracy would be debased. That was the question we had to ask ourselves: should we or should we not encourage this medium in Singapore for political debate? If we do, then all of us are in.

Mr Simon Tay talked about unequal impact. If we are in, I think the PAP would not necessarily be disadvantaged, because you will need money, and because of our wide base of support in Singapore, we are likely to be able to raise more money than the opposition can. But to its credit since 1959, the PAP has never used the financial hurdle to keep out the opposition from this House. Till today, does it cost a lot for Mr Chiam and Mr Low Thia Khiang? Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam has a different problem because he skirts on the margin of libel and so gets caught out from time to time. But did it cost Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam See Tong a lot of money to get voted in? Did they have to be businessmen? Did they have to be independently wealthy? You can get in today on a shoe-string if you can win the hearts and the minds of the people of Singapore. And that is what it should continue to be. Do not make it show business. Keep it to an encounter of ideas so that Singaporeans will decide whom to vote for, whom to represent them in this House on the basis of ideas.

Because it was a very serious matter, I put it up to the Cabinet. We had a discussion in the Cabinet. Then my Ministry issued a policy instruction to BFC to say, "Look, we should not allow the making and distribution of political films." So the SDP's application was turned down. That was in July 1996. At that time, we had three SDP Members in this House. We had a Member from the Workers' Party. Did anyone of them raise a single question and cause the matter to be debated? Not a word. If it was such an important matter, so crucial to the outcome of the election, all of them would have jumped up and down. Did they? The records speak for themselves.

We could have gotten by, I could have gotten by, without tabling this Amendment Bill because, under the existing Films Act, we are able to ban political videos, and that's that. But why then did we decide to enact this amendment? In order that we have this debate in the House today. Because it is such an important matter, and is a matter which will recur, it is very important for the public mind that we know what the issues are, and if Singaporeans are excluded from using film as a medium for political debate, they know why. I was under no pressure from the opposition, or from anybody for that matter, to enact this amendment.

Mr Simon Tay asked, "If politics, why not race or religion?" In fact, the Films Act does not explicitly state the grounds on which films can be censored. We inherited this Act from the British. It is left open so that internal guidelines would build up over a period of time. For obscenity and violence, detailed guidelines have been drawn up and this is also my answer to the NMP, Claire Chiang. If a film is made, which inflames public emotions, let us say, the Indian Army's storming of the Golden Temple in Amritsar, we will have to look at it very carefully. If it is inflammatory or incendiary, we would have stopped it. That's that. This is because the public interest requires it. But in this particular case, because it affects the evolution of political debate and discussion in Singapore, we thought it better to have a full airing so that we all know why we are doing this. It is not because we have to, not because we are under pressure to, but because it is good for the development of our democracy in Singapore.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Singapore's own democracy.

BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Yes, which allow Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam to now make this interruption.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Singapore's own brand of democracy.

BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Every society treats film as a special category, because it has a mass impact which books and other forms of broadcast do not have. For television, we are watching different channels. We watch desultorily. I may be in the toilet, I may come back with popcorn. There is no focused attention. For books, we read different books. For Internet, there are millions of web pages. But when you gather a group of people together in a theatrette or an amphitheatre and watch the same drama, by words, pictures, music, sound, you can bring everyone to laughter and tears into their eyes or you can arouse in them deep hatred and a desire for revenge.

The communists and the fascists work this into an art. In China today, the whole of China, in a year they show 200 films. They treat the cinema hall as they do the television station. Every year, we show over a thousand films in Singapore. We consider them mostly entertainment. But in the wrong hands, films can have a powerful impact. It is for this reason that over a period of time, in all societies special laws have been enacted to govern the making, distribution and production of films. This is why this Act is different from, say, the Publications Act or the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act or the Singapore Broadcasting Act.

Many Members have talked about whether somehow we would stop having discussions on television, whether party political broadcast would cease, whether we would stop foreign views coming in through SCV. None of it. Because the Act makes it very plain that it does not cover broadcasting. We are talking about films and its variants, videos and new mutants on the Internet. But we are talking principally about films, about people coming together for a group exhibition being moved together one way or another.

Why the heavy fine of $100,000 and up to two years of jail sentence? Because the impact during an election campaign can be dramatic. Let us say, $2,000, as proposed by Mr Chiam. Election day minus two, you suddenly mass-distribute throughout Singapore in key constituencies and you swing the public vote, whether PAP or opposition. And we transform the nature of this House. After that, you can pay the fine. But the damage has been done. The damage can be dramatic and catastrophic. So there must be no doubts in people's minds as to the seriousness of this offence. Of course, if this is done years before an election and under less serious circumstances, I am sure the judge would take it into account. But the purpose of having a high maximum is because in an election campaign, the consequences of such a wrongdoing can affect gravely our country.

A number of Members have asked, "Why can't we just restrict the definition to films made by political parties? Then it is a simple definition. It is clear. I am not a political party. I do not make the film. That's that." But imagine if we had confined it in this restrictive way, and you are a political party desperate to win votes and wanting to use film as a way to win votes, what would you do? You get your friends outside the party to produce and to distribute the films. You do it in the Workers' Party, the SDP will do it, the PAP will do it. This is why the second limb has to be constructed because if you do not construct the second limb, that wider definition, you cannot maintain the position in the first limb. But the intent is clear. It is not, in non-party political fields, to do anything more than what we are doing now.

Mr Chiam and Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam suggested that we are denying high-tech to the opposition. You will remember that some years ago, I caused the Young PAP to start an Internet web site, knowing full well that we would have to eventually regulate political web sites on the Internet. Letters which Mr Jeyaretnam complains are not being printed in the Straits Times, he is quite free to post them on his web site. Singaporeans are free to click in on his web site and be moved by the force of his arguments. I would suggest to members of the public from time to time to scan political web sites to see what is on them. If our political parties are really so deprived, so excluded from all channels of communications, so denied of free speech, you would have thought that their web sites would be flourishing centres of debate and discussion and enlightenment. Are they?

Some Members have also asked, "We already have the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and the Internal Security Act. Are they not enough?" In an election campaign, you cannot lightly use the Internal Security Act because it would be immediately misunderstood. If you use it after the elections are over, the damage is already done. It is a blunt instrument. We need something finer.

Dr Toh See Kiat asked whether the definition of political films would somehow prevent discussion on animal rights or about the moral issues concerning cloning or whatever. It depends on the actual facts of the situation. If animal rights become a gripping political issue in Singapore, and all political parties take positions, then, yes. But if it is just a fringe activity, firstly, I do not think we will take notice, and secondly, if it is unbiased and takes in all views, I think that may well qualify as a reporting rather than anything else. The key is: is it partisan? Is it biased? Is it intended to influence an election, or legislation?

An MP asked, "Why not have more civic participation? Why not have a Select Committee?" There are so many consultation boards in Singapore that I have quite lost count. In my Ministry alone, we have proliferated. So have the other Ministries. Many Singaporeans complain that they are being asked to sit on so many boards and so many panels. Far from it being that we do not consult, if there is a criticism now, it is perhaps that we consult a little too lightly and too frequently.

Is this somehow a restriction of free speech, free debate, in Singapore? Recently, the two major financial television channels merged, ABN, which is owned by Dow Jones and TCI, and CNBC, which has a joint arrangement with Microsoft. They merged and they decided to keep as their common entity, CNBC. CNBC was based in Hong Kong, and ABN in Singapore. The merged entity would be called CNBC. They decided that it should be based in Singapore and not Hong Kong. If we blithely enact laws to prevent debate and free speech and the education of our people, would big international media corporations like Dow Jones and TCI and NBC have taken such a position? But this does not mean that we should not be masters of our own destiny and shape the evolution of our own democracy.

Once again, I thank Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam for providing contrast to our argument. He asked why we should separate religion from politics, by which I infer that he would encourage monks and priests and ulamas to talk about politics.

Mr Jeyaretnam: About issues.

BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: On political issues, in places of worship. Mr Jeyaretnam's position on this is clear. Our position on this is clear. I think the majority of Singapore's position on this is also very clear. So too our proposal here to exclude film as a very poor medium, and a degrading medium, for political debate in Singapore.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, may I ask the Minister by way of clarification? I understood him to say that if videotapes were allowed in the elections, and he mentioned one, two, three constituencies, it would transform the nature of this House. I take it that the Minister says we would then have more opposition Members in Parliament. And he says that the damage would have been done. May I know what would be the damage if you had more opposition Members in Parliament?

BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, I was not saying that at all. If we had political videos, Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam may not be in this House.

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.