PUBLICATION OF NEWSPAPER (Motion)

Mr Speaker: The motion is subject to signification of support by at least one Member. Does the motion have the support of any other Member?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I support the motion.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this House, recognising that an independent press is essential to the freedoms of the people, calls upon the Government to announce its readiness to grant a licence to a newspaper company to publish a newspaper independently and outside of Singapore Press Holdings with the assurance that no government control or pressure will be extended over the publication of news.

Sir, this motion that I have tabled this evening is in line with the motions that I have tabled in the earlier sittings of Parliament urging for a greater freedom of expression in this country as is provided for in the Constitution. It goes without saying that freedom of the press is an integral, perhaps even the sine qua non of the freedom of expression. It is the press which will provide the people the freedom of expression that the Constitution guarantees in the widest manner possible. As was said in a collection of essays on the American press, the right of the people to speak out through a free press is the hallmark of a democratic society, and we in Singapore claim to be a democratic society.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

5.23 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: If that is to be maintained, Mr Deputy Speaker, then it is essential that we give our people, every citizen in Singapore, the right to speak out. As I said, this is only possible in the widest manner through a press which is fearless, independent, to speak out on behalf of the people.

The press is one of the institutions of democracy. Some people might say that it is the most important institution of a democratic society. It is, along with the other institutions, the guardian of the liberty of the people. It must take it upon itself the responsibility to eke out any injustices, any wrongdoings committed against the people or even one member of the society, and to speak out against it. This freedom of expression and the role for the press have not been won easily in the countries where it now obtains. It has been won by the press in those countries recognising their responsibilities and their role, fighting for the freedom of expression through the press.

In his book which he calls "An anatomy of the Press" entitled "Dangerous Estate", Francis Williams, who was an editor himself at one time, writes:

"The development of the press is part of the history of national development. Much more than political constitutions, statistics of economic progress or demonstrations of national unity, the state of a country's newspapers discloses which rung of the ladder of civilisation has been reached. This is not only because newspapers reflect, as they must, public taste, but because the structure and status of the press show more revealingly than almost anything else the real stage of national development."

He continues:

"In a sense, even more profound than arises from its nature as a reporter of events, the press is the mirror of its age because the degree of authority and independence it is permitted to exercise, or is able to seize for itself and the nature of its influence of public opinion throw light in a way nothing else quite does on the real balance of power within a society."

That is important. The newspapers reflect and throw light on the real balance of power within a society. It is by perusing the newspapers that any comer to a country will be able to gauge or to find out where the balance of power lies. Of course, again it goes without saying, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that the balance of power must lie with the people. If it does not, then it is not a democracy. It can be anything else but a democracy.

Francis Williams, again in his book, sees the press "as a weapon of freedom, a sword in the hands of those fighting old or new tyrannies, the one indispensable piece of ordnance in the armoury of democracy." These are strong words but they were necessary when the press was fighting for its freedom.

Freedom of expression, Mr Deputy Speaker, which as I said, is so vital and the essence of democracy, cannot flourish unless there is in the citizens a right to know. Now, who supplies this right to know, if not the newspapers? If the newspapers fail in this duty to inform the citizens the truth, and honestly, then they cease to be a newspaper. They become an organ of whoever is in power and serve not the people but the government or the party in power.

It has been said again in this collection of essays that in the American press, it is a self-appointed role to inform the public about government activities, thereby sparking open debate. In the middle of the last century, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when the government of the United Kingdom then was attempting to control what the press would publish, what the press would print, the Times in an Editorial in 1852 said:

"The dignity and freedom of the press are trammelled from the moment it accepts an ancillary position. To perform its duties with entire independence and consequently with the utmost public advantage, the press can enter into no close or binding alliances with the statesmen of the day, nor can it surrender its permanent interests to the convenience of the ephemeral power of any government."

These were all the values that were held at the time when the press in England were fighting to represent the people's views. And, again, in this "Dangerous Estate", talking about one of the great editors of the Times (Barnes was the editor), Williams has this to say

"Barnes's influence was rooted in the conviction that a newspaper is "not an organ through which the Government could influence the people but an organ through which the people could influence the Government"."

And in his concluding chapter, Francis Williams presents what the present role is, because times have changed. At one time it seemed as though the press was becoming tyrannical in England, it was trying to control policies. And so times have changed and the press have changed a little. But he said the basic role remains the same. And he concludes that the present role is:

"To provide a voice for the people that even the largest administrative monster will hear above the grinding of its own machinery.

Its role in society is not that of a judge but that of a minefield through which authority, great and small and at every level of policy and administration, must step wearily, conscious always that a false step may blow it up."

And he said:

"The basic commitment of journalism remains . the same. . It is to report honestly [that means, sticking to the truth as near as possible], to comment fearlessly and to hold fast to independence.

[This commitment to] Values call for honesty; honesty to those attacked as well as to those defended. [This] requires that facts shall not be distorted. What is said shall be said with both courage and fairness."

If Members think that this is all western heresy and it is not something for us to follow, may I tell them that these principles or values have been held fast in a number of Asian societies. I do not have to mention them all, but the most clear example would be India, the greatest and largest democracy in the world, as it has been termed very often. And I see only in yesterday's paper that when the Pakistani government is trying to close down a newspaper, there is a procession against the closure led by Miss Bhutto and a number of other political parties, and they are all united in defending the freedom of the press. And it is not only just these two, but there are the Philippines, even Thailand and Sri Lanka.

But let us not just rely on what the other countries are doing. May I, even if it is tedious, again recall what the present Senior Minister said about the press when he was fighting for the freedom of the press way back in the fifties and sixties. Speaking in the then Legislative Assembly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Senior Minister - I regret that he is not here to listen to what he said then - had this to say:

"...we either believe in democracy or we do not. If we do, then we must say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from any democratic process, other than by ordinary law of the land, should be allowed. If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at naught, and no excuse, whether security, inconvenience to the traffic, or inconvenience to police officers, should allow a government to be deterred from doing what it knows to be right, and what it must know to be right."

Speaking in the same year in the Assembly in October, he said - this, Mr Deputy Speaker, has often been quoted, as the "making-love" speech:

"I am told [repression] is like making love - it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course, with constant repetition, you get more and more brazen on the attack and in the scope of the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organisations and societies and banish or detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface."

If I may just interpose, here comes the most operative part of this speech:

"Then an intimidated Press and the Government controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done. Or if these things are referred to again, they are conveniently distorted, and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict."

All these must seem very familiar to us in Singapore today. But that was in 1956 the now Senior Minister holding forth in the Legislative Assembly.

And when we were part of Malaysia, what did he have to say? Speaking in the Malaysian Parliament in December 1964, he said:

"Let us get down to fundamentals. Is this an open or a closed society? Is it a society where man can preach ideas - the novel, unorthodox, heresies, established churches and established governments where there is a constant contest for men's hearts and minds on the basis of what is right, of what is just, or what is in the national interest? Or is it a closed society where the mass media - the newspapers, journals, publications, TV, radio - either by sound or by sight, or both sound and sight, feed men's minds with a constant drone of sycophantic support for a particular orthodox philosophy?"

So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the principles that the west was espousing were very dear to the heart of the Senior Minister when he was fighting for the same. May I then remind the Members that this is not just western heresy or western values that I am attempting to impose on Singapore. My commitment and my belief is that we in Singapore, if we are to become a democratic society, have to hold fast to the principles that the Senior Minister was espousing in the fifties and sixties. If they were found necessary then, they are all the more necessary today, as we now prepare to go into the 21st century, with its challenges facing us, with all the competitions that confront us when we go into the 21st century. So, it is not just western or liberal values but values that a number of Asian societies have accepted and which to my mind, and I am sure to people who think rightly, are essential for a democratic society.

May I now look at the position in Singapore today. We would appear to have reached, what the Senior Minister said in 1956, an intimidated press of which he was warning the Legislative Assembly and that position, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I say, with regret, has been reached systematically and deliberately by measures taken by his Government after it took power in 1959.

At present, we have really one newspaper, or one company, one stable, which brings out broadsheets or tabloids but all reporting faithfully whatever the Government or the PAP wishes them to put forward. They have failed in their duty of being a voice for the people and they have become a voice for the Government and that has been made possible by the amendment that was passed in 1974 which legalised the de facto control of the press which was already in place before 1974. Members will recall that it was before 1974, the years preceding that, that the Eastern Sun was closed. It was accused of being anti-Singapore because there was some money received from abroad. Then there was the forced closure of the Singapore Herald for what the Government termed "black operations". No paper which was even mildly critical of the Government was allowed to operate. But this was all done, as I said, de facto, without the legal control over it. And so it was in 1974 that a new Bill was introduced in Parliament, the Newspaper and Printing Presses Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have taken the trouble to read the debate in the Parliament on the Second Reading of that Bill. I am not going to bore Members by reading what was said. But the reason given for the amendments, and I shall take the House through the amendments that were made, was that the control of the newspapers had to be put into the hands of Singapore citizens. One Member talked about not allowing demons and devils to control the press in Singapore and so subvert Singaporeans. Another talked about even embassies and diplomatic organisations in Singapore subverting Singaporeans by taking out advertisements or airing their views through the local media. And of course, before the 1972 elections, the Opposition parties and, particularly, the Workers' Party was accused of being a proxy for foreign powers and it was also mentioned that the press might be taken over by proxy by foreign powers.

But the irony of all this is that, in this House, whilst Members who spoke were all speaking about the necessity to put the control over the newspapers in the hands of Singapore citizens, they failed to see that what the Act did, and there was no question about this, was not to put the control into the hands of Singaporeans; it was to put the control of the newspapers in the hands of the Government, which are two different things. The then Minister for Culture spoke of putting the control of our newspapers in the hands of our citizens and that Singaporeans could not afford to have black operations mounted against us.

But if one looks at the provisions in that Act, it is so clear that what that Act did was to put the dissemination of news completely and totally in the control of the Government. It introduced for the first time management shares as distinct from ordinary shares, creating two classes of shares, namely, management shares and ordinary shares. No management shares could be issued or transferred except to citizens of Singapore - one may not have quarrel with that, but this is where the sting is - or corporations who or which have been granted the written approval of the Minister. No company shall refuse to issue or accept transfer of management shares where the Minister has granted an approval. And the holder of management shares wielded great power. These were the people who were approved by the Minister. The holder of management shares, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure Members are aware of this but I need to emphasise it again, was given 200 votes for each management share held by him or her in any resolution relating to the appointment or dismissal of a director or any member of the staff of a newspaper company. That, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, sealed the question as to who was to have the major say or the only say in the appointment of the editor, the appointment of even journalists and reporters in any newspaper. It was the holders of the management shares and their share counted for 200 votes against the ordinary shareholders.

Whilst the Act did not make any mention about the limit of shares that may be held by management shareholders, it limited ordinary shareholders to no more than 3% of the ordinary shares. So through these amendments that were made, the press passed into the control of the Government legally, de jure, when previously control was effected de facto. So what is the result today as a result of the amendments made in 1974 and the actions taken under that?

We have the Singapore Press Holdings controlling the entire newspaper industry in Singapore. It has been, I think, termed the largest press company in the world. Who is on the board of this? The Chairman is an ex-Cabinet Minister. The Executive Director was a one time Director of the Internal Security Department. The other members of the board are tried and trusted men of the Government. And so the press became a mouthpiece for the Government. Whatever freedom it had, and it had very little before 1974, was taken away and it became a castrated press.

May I just read to you what was given to me, and it appeared on the Internet at the beginning of this year, I am told, and this illustrates the control that is exercised over publication of any news in the Straits Times. This man was, he says, a junior sub-editor in the Straits Times, and he speaks of an evening when he was with his Chief Sub-editor when Mr Leslie Fong, who has admitted that he was an ardent admirer of the PAP from his school days, came into the room where they were working, trying to put the paper to bed, getting everything ready, to tell them that he had had a call from upstairs. Everyone understood what "upstairs" meant. The Straits Times was not to overplay or underplay the visit of a China delegation that was visiting Singapore or was about to visit Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, are you prepared to substantiate what happened?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, I am saying that it appeared on the Internet.

Mr Deputy Speaker: No, I will not allow that. Anybody can post anything on the Internet.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, perhaps one could ask Mr Leslie Fong and the Chief Sub-Editor. He gives the name, Roger Yew. These names are mentioned. This has not been rebutted. There has been no reply from Leslie Fong or anyone else.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Never mind about that. Unless you are prepared to substantiate what happened actually, I will not allow you to quote that.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. But as I said, this appeared in public. It was read by Singaporeans and there has been no rebuttal of it.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Will you proceed to a new point?

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right. May I then move on to the comments made about the press today in Singapore and that, of course, was also reported in the Straits Times - I hope you are not going to ask me to substantiate it. These were the comments made by Mr Marshall who was once the Chief Minister and Ambassador for the Government in France for many years. And he was speaking at the Substation one evening. This was reported and this is what he had to say, "Today, Singapore's censorship is worse, broader and more strict than any time under the British imperial rule." There is this man, Mr Marshall, who was the Chief Minister of Singapore and who was an Ambassador of the Government, saying this publicly. He, of course, had very unkind words for the Straits Times, calling them "boot-lickers". But he asked this question: "where do we go to express our differences or views if we are not allowed to hold meetings or write to the press?" He was commenting on the refusal of the Straits Times to publish a letter that he had sent protesting against the death penalty and asking the President to commute all the death sentences to 20 year jail terms.

Mr Francis Seow, in his latest book, "Media Enthralled", recalls a statement made by the roving Ambassador for Singapore, Professor Tommy Koh in 1991. Speaking at a forum, Professor Tommy Koh was reported to have said that journalists in Singapore must constantly work under a cloud of fear and, of course Members will recall that some months ago, I was talking about the fear that grips Singaporeans asking for steps to be taken to rid them of the fear. That is the position in Singapore today. The press has ceased to play its role. The press has become nothing but an organ or propaganda for the Government and a mouthpiece for Government's views. How long is this going to go on if Singapore is to become a democratic society? Is this the press, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that Singapore needs for the 21st century? Is this how we are going to educate our people? Is this how we are going to equip them for the problems of the country that lie ahead by depriving them of the right to know, of being informed honestly and truthfully what happens in Singapore? This, I can substantiate to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can tell you that several of my Party's statements, several of my letters that I send to the Straits Times never see the light of day. The Government makes much of its right to reply. It insists on this in foreign newspapers. But this same right of which the Government makes so much is denied to opposition parties or to the citizens by the press in Singapore.

I am not rosy eyed about the press in the West. I am not unmindful of the excesses and the lengths that the press carry their freedom to. But may I say that these excesses, especially on this recent Clinton affair in the United States, the extent to which the press reported it, the extent to which the media carried the news, show the strength of democracy in the United States. It shows the resilience of the people. May I say that it is preferable, even with these excesses, to the press that we have in Singapore which is completely one-sided, and acts only as a mouthpiece for the Government, carrying out, - performing the task against which Mr Lee Kuan Yew was railing in 1950s and 1960s.

In this 1974 Bill, there was some mention of the Government having thought about a Press Council. I do not know why they have not been able to set up a Press Council all these years. But, of course, a Press Council will be of no value if it is manned by people who think alike with the PAP or the Government. The Council has to be independent who values the independence and freedom of the newspapers.

May I make a plea in this House, to this Government, that it is time that we made a complete break with the way that we have been controlling our newspapers, and give our people their right, the unfettered, untrammelled right, to express their opinions, their viewpoints through a press which will be fearless and will speak up for the people. This is not possible at the moment with the set-up in Singapore as it is now and that is why I ask the Government to say in this House this evening that it will be ready or happy to consider an application by a newspaper company not controlled by foreigners, but Singaporeans, to publish another newspaper outside the Singapore Press Holdings and to assure whoever is prepared to do this that there will be no day-to-day control over them. That they would be at liberty, they would have the freedom to perform their duties and responsibilities as a press to act as the voice of the people, to uphold the freedom of the people, and to be the guardians of the liberty of the people. This cannot be performed by the Straits Times, particularly, or by any other paper in the stable of the Singapore Press Holdings.

The reason is that those who work for these companies, for the Singapore Press Holdings, and who write for these newspapers have been dyed in the wool with the PAP's philosophy of the role of the newspapers, which is to act simply as the disseminator of Government's views and Government's viewpoints and to try and persuade the people to accept the Government's policies. That is not the role of the newspapers. That is why I cannot see any one in the present set-up being able to discharge this new role for the press in Singapore. It may be that we may have to bring from abroad editors who are committed to the value of a free press in a democratic society and who are prepared to speak up without fear and with honesty and truth. We may have to recruit journalists, reporters who still hold on to these values and who have not surrendered these values to the requirements of the Government or its preferences. It seems to me that this is a matter of pressing urgency if, as I said earlier, we are going into the 21st century with our heads held high.

May I finally end with a prayer by a great Indian poet, Rabindranath Tagore:

`Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;

Where knowledge is free;

Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;

Where words come out from the depth of truth;

Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;

Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;

Where the mind is led forward by Thee into ever widening thought and action;

Into that heaven of freedom, my father, let my country awake.'

May I say that is my prayer for Singapore, that our people may be led into that heaven of freedom where they can hold their heads high and where they can make judgments for the country themselves. And that is not possible, Mr Deputy Speaker, when we have a press which is manacled by the Government and is not able to perform its functions. I hope very much that whoever speaks on behalf of the Government will this evening tell us whether the Government is ready to break from this habit of 30 years or 40 years and to make a new beginning in Singapore.

Question proposed.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the motion.

I believe, essentially, the motion is flawed for a number of reasons. To begin with, I would like to stress that whilst there exist certain regulatory controls on the print media in Singapore, there is no prohibition for any company independent of the Singapore Press Holdings to apply for a licence and to publish an alternative newspaper in Singapore if they meet the conditions stated in the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act. We do not have to go too far back in our short history to remember that there had existed a number of alternative newspapers here, not run under the ambit of the Singapore Press Holdings, right up to the 1980s. And through natural attrition and consolidation in the newspaper industry, the industry has evolved to what it is today.

Sir, I believe that the Government does not dictate nor does it have any direct influence on the media and the newspapers here. What minimalist control the Government has over licensing, for instance, is necessary to safeguard against the potential rampant distortion of facts that may permeate and undermine the fragile social fabric of our society. Issues like religious and ethnic harmony have to be dealt with very carefully in order to avoid the conflicts evident in a close neighbour of ours like Indonesia where the mass proliferation of news and the print media following the change in the President last year has simply led to more confusion than illumination of the truth. And this has contributed in part to much civil disharmony, religious and racial conflicts today.

Here, in Singapore, we cannot afford to take such risks. Hence, we require newspapers and other print media to be licensed. This does not, however, prevent anyone else from publishing another newspaper here, provided they are conscious of their social responsibilities. A free press is not an end in itself, and journalists here are fully aware of the responsibilities that come with this freedom. In order to stay relevant and respected, our local press has thus far acted in a most responsible manner in reporting the facts as our journalists are all fully aware of the additional role they play in nation building, and they are not under Government control or pressure, as implied by the motion.

Sir, there are already many alternative means to convey information in this age where technology has enabled, through the Internet, for instance, almost instantaneous transmission of news. Currently, quite contrary to what Mr Jeyaretnam has said, Singaporeans have the freedom to access the Internet, have access to cable TV and have access to foreign newspapers and magazines, to obtain, to compare and to analyse information in order to make rational informed choices. Our track record underlines the openness of our news media.

Indeed, the problem today is not whether we should have another newspaper. The problem is that Singaporeans have too many choices to choose now, too many choices to access information and news, given the limited free time that they have after minusing hours for working, sleeping, resting and recreation. Singaporeans are increasingly more and more selective in the news that they read.

Sir, the existence of a vibrant and active media hub in Singapore is evident that the assumptions of Mr Jeyaretnam's motion cannot be true. Singapore has successfully transformed itself today into a regional media hub where CNBC, ESPN, MTV, Discovery channel and many other international broadcasters have set up bases here. Access to information will be further enhanced when Singapore One and CableVision are transmitted live into the majority of homes in Singapore by the end of this year. These organisations are most sensitive to Government controls and they will not thrive in a closed and controlled society. If this happens, they will be the first to flee from it.

As has already been pointed out, I think this motion is nonsensical. There is no need for such a motion as there is no specification by the Government that newspapers are only allowed to be printed by Singapore Press Holdings. Indeed, under the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, which Mr Jeyaretnam has just described, anyone can set up a newspaper company in Singapore, provided they meet the shareholding criteria. They must have two classes of shares, management and ordinary shares, and management shares have to be in the hands of Singaporeans or organizations approved by the Government. Any shareholder cannot hold more than 3% of the shares. An additional criterion is that the directors of this newspaper company must all be Singaporeans. If indeed Mr Jeyaretnam can find enough Singaporeans to meet these criteria, he can set up a newspaper.

Sir, I have been involved in the print media for many years and I believe that the print media has consolidated throughout the years due to pure economic fundamentals. With a population of only three million people and about 700,000-800,000 households in Singapore and for reasons of economies of scale, it makes more business sense for consolidation of the newspaper industry, as there is not enough advertising revenue or readership in Singapore to make it viable for an alternative newspaper company to survive financially on its own. There is currently sufficient competition already as we can access the major newspapers and publications from all over the world.

In conclusion, Sir, I would suggest to Mr Jeyaretnam that it is simply a matter of financial economics that has led to the present status quo and not, as he has implied, a result of Government controls and pressure.

Sir, I urge the House to reject the motion.

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity.

Sir, the motion calls for the Government to give an assurance about granting a newspaper licence to any company applying for one. I believe, like Mr Chew, this is not necessary. My understanding is that there have been no applications in recent years for any newspaper licence.

The last time an application was made was in April 1988 when the Straits Times Press Ltd applied for and was issued a permit to publish the New Paper. The difficulty in sustaining another daily publication as a viable business is perhaps the disincentive against another daily newspaper being established and not because the Government is not willing to grant the licence.

Asian cities do not find it easy to support two English language daily papers. The No. 2 daily newspaper is only marginally profitable. Examples are the Nation in Bangkok and the Hong Kong Standard. And even the renowned Asian Wall Street Journal lost money for over 10 years before it made any profit.

So, if a bona fide application to start a newspaper was made and denied, then perhaps Mr Jeyaretnam should ask for a reason. Otherwise, we cannot expect the Government to give assurances for theoretical issues. There will be no end to the number and types of assurances which it will be asked to make.

Having said that, I do believe in competition - between companies, and certainly between newspapers. Competition already exists for the private sector, and is being introduced for state-owned monopolies. GLCs which had natural or quasi-monopolies are also being encouraged to face competition. In so far as SPH is a GLC, I believe it is healthy for it to face competition, particularly since it has pretty much cornered the newspaper business in Singapore. As a consumer, I would certainly welcome a competitor to start another daily, but this is not for us in this House nor the Government to mandate. I would only hope that if a serious-minded competitor wishes to challenge the Straits Times, the Government will not stand in the way.

So much for business competition. I believe that there is another issue here which should be addressed, ie, the competition for ideas. Learning to evaluate competing ideas helps to nurture in our young the attributes of critical, independent and analytical thinking which will be the basis for a knowledge-based economy. If we truly wish to be an open society, capable of making sound judgments by assessing a situation from different angles and discerning the substantive from the fluff, then we must encourage an environment which enables a competition for ideas.

For these reasons, I would encourage a competitor to the Straits Times. I must quickly add here that judging from the increase of letters to the Editor over the past few years, Straits Times had indeed published many "alternative" views from Singaporeans on a whole range of Government policies. There were angry protests and clear rebuttals to public policies; the Chinatown theme destination was one recent example. I applaud the Straits Times for printing the comments from the critics and the public for undertaking the initiative to write in and make their views known. For me, such effort reflects a growing independent thinking among Singaporeans who want more say in national policies. And I urge all newspapers to continue to give more space to Singaporeans to capture their different opinion pieces.

In conclusion, I do not support the motion because it is framed within unclear terms of reference and postulates a theoretical situation which has not occurred. But I do wish that a bona fide newspaper company will step forward to take up the challenge to compete with SPH. I hope the Government will grant it a licence to operate as a business; then we should let Singaporeans, as intelligent readers, decide if it can survive and flourish. If this happens, Singaporeans will be all the better prepared in the new millennium to benefit from, rather than be overwhelmed by, the intense competition of ideas arising from the information explosion from the Internet.

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I give my qualified support to the motion that we should be ready to grant a licence to a newspaper company outside the Singapore Press Holdings and suggest reducing the current laws for management shares and special holding rights under the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act. However, I disagree with some of the proposals made by Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam. I am personally in favour of certain controls. I cannot support the motion that no government control be extended over the publication of news. We should maintain the present controls against foreign ownership and control of local news organisations. Even in the US, while there is no ban on foreign ownership of newspaper or cable system, a foreign entity may not control a radio or television outlet. While an unregulated press is very much a feature of the media in the US, the Voice of America is still government-owned or controlled which, by law, is not allowed to broadcast within the borders of the United States.

In Singapore, it would be better to be more protectionistic and not allow a completely unregulated press because foreigners may not understand our unique nation building process, making it easy for media to tear society apart. They may not be aware of the state of our democratic and political culture which means that a completely free exchange in public can lead to extremism. The vulnerability of our small nation still needs a coordinated national effort by the Government. I also accept the view that the Government can and should bring its influence on news organisation. The Government has a mandate to set a broad agenda. It is right for it to want the media to support the agenda and do what it can to persuade editors that it is right. Government intervention of the press can also be justified in terms of the influence to ensure that the Straits Times, Lianhe Zaobao, Tamil Murasu, Berita Harian play a broad-based national role and not succumb to ethnic and communal roles.

Having said that, I support the proposal raised by the NCMP to allow the establishment of another newspaper company outside the SPH and urge the Government to review the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, which currently allows the Government to appoint management shareholders of Singapore Press Holdings. This has brought about an undesirable consequence that the Board of Directors and, through them, the editors who are appointed by the Government being generally perceived as biased or pro-Government.

The question is: when does Government influence become Government censorship? The danger of Government having too much power over the press is, instead of winning arguments by persuading editors, which settles its case by force, the media must fall in line. This is not only unfair to the press and to the public, it is also wrong because it can make Government lazy. It removes an important check in policy discussion and debate. After a while, Government officials may believe that they are always winning all the arguments because they are always right and forget that the real reason is because the press is not allowed to counter argue too strenuously. Therefore, press reform may be necessary to check against the possible abuse of power by future governments.

The usual justification for media laws is the need to be careful with racial, religious and regional sensitivities. Today, most media professionals in Singapore have by now already internalised the sensitivities. If controls were lifted tomorrow, I doubt that they will go and start a riot.

As the Chairman of the feedback group on mass media, I frequently receive feedback that we should have another newspaper outside the SPH. But Singaporeans are still generally concerned about the negative repercussions of extremism and chauvinism. In this regard, I support the existing laws that limit what can and cannot be printed or broadcast in Singapore. This will ensure that a racially chauvinistic press will not emerge. Furthermore, there are provisions within the legal framework to handle undesirable or subversive press. For example, the Sedition Act which prohibits publication or speeches that exhibit seditious tendencies, the Undesirable Publications Act which can ban publication contrary to public interest, and the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act which can restrict the circulation of any publication sold in Singapore. These provide adequate safeguards against chauvinistic tendencies.

In essence, Sir, what the reader wants is an independent press or, on the other, the Government may want a press that is fully accountable to the state. This appears to be fundamentally irreconcilable. But my contention is that it is not necessarily mutual or exclusive as it may first appear. What is generally misunderstood is the role journalists play in maintaining independence in ethical principles in respecting the conduct of the press. This means recognition of the importance of fair and balanced reporting in which opinions that differ from the writer or the newspaper or the Government officials are nevertheless accurately portrayed. It means to be disciplined in deliberately separating one's own opinion from the objective presentation of facts.

Contrary to Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam's view, I think journalists in Singapore have placed a high level of importance on public service, impartial reporting and balanced opinion. But the Government must ask itself, even if the original reasons for media controls have to do with national security, is this the way media controls are actually applied today? There is the danger that the present situation may in the future lead to the press being managed to make Government officials' job easier because decisions can be made with a minimum of fuss or debate. If this is so, then it is time to review our media regulations.

I would like to raise a number of issues, hopefully, to persuade the Government to review the present laws.

(1) The concern that the local market is not big enough for a second or third newspaper company to survive. I think it is more appropriate for a private enterprise to decide and should be left to market forces. Readers as citizens and consumers can decide for themselves the newspaper that is worthy of their trust and patronage.

(2) Competition can bring about not only diversity of views but generate creativity and efficiency in management and operations. As the bulk of revenues from newspaper companies comes from advertising, increased competition is more likely to bring about more benefits to consumers. We must be aware of the dangers of monopolies as they are seldom efficient.

(3) The belief that ideas must be able to conflict with one another and given a chance to be heard because participation and disagreement in shaping public policy is an important part of our nation building process and, certainly, an important concept of publication, otherwise newspapers will not be able to fulfil adequately their role as mirror of society.

(4) There is also the fear that competition may lead to an adversarial press and Government relationship, as in some foreign examples, leading to being a watchdog of Government. The press is constantly on the lookout for mistakes of Government. But we must view debate quite differently from adversarial arguments, debate as a necessary value in the search for a solution to common problems. It presupposes that the debaters are worried by the same questions. It brings new life and ideas and facts and makes possible a better solution.

(5) While the press in Singapore is generally credited for a reliable and accurate source of information, it suffers, quite unfairly, some credibility problems when it comes to coverage of local domestic issues. Readers have learnt to read between the lines. Unfortunately, bad news about opposition are often regarded as politically motivated even when they are not. Having an alternative or independent newspaper can do much to remove this credibility gap.

Press reforms can also lead to a more vibrant community-based newspaper, something which I believe is much needed here in Singapore as part of our effort to forge a stronger community spirit amongst neighbours. This is especially relevant in Singapore as housing redevelopment has uprooted families to new neighbourhoods. A community-based newspaper is able to make people aware of their surroundings and the changes that are taking place. They can do things that national newspapers do not. They can help instill a sense of belonging.

If these are not sufficient to assure the Government, I suggest that we can introduce other relevant measures as applied in some other countries. In the UK, for example, there is a Press Complaint Commission which is a voluntary non-statutory body established and funded by the newspaper and magazine industry, which considers, adjudicates, conciliates and resolves complaints of unfair treatment by the press, and ensures that the press maintains the highest professional standards with respect for generally recognised freedom, notably freedom of expression, the public's right to know and the right of the press to operate and free from improper pressure. Newspaper and magazine conduct is judged against a code of practice. This has been drafted by editors and agreed by the industry and ratified by the Commission. Its members are editors of national, regional and local newspapers and magazines and also from other fields, including Members of Parliament.

In the US, libel laws and self-appointed press monitors act as checks and balances against journalistic excesses both inside and outside the industry. Some newspapers appoint ombudsman to investigate public complaints and publish self-criticism and enforce internal standards.

While there are those in Singapore who view that the media in US is dangerously adversarial, very few mass circulation newspapers, magazines and broadcast stations are in fact affiliated with political organisations. In fact, purposeful non-affiliation has been the hallmark of American press characterised by both professional pride and independence arising from self and economics sufficiency.

Considering the state of our society, Sir, we can and should have an independent press, though not necessarily unregulated. We can have an ideological non-partisan newspaper, though not one with political affiliation. We can have a sparkling debate, as Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam says, though not an adversarial one. We can have a paper that mirrors the diverse views of our society, yet not with the self-appointed watchdog of Government. If we do not have it now, we should work progressively to have it in the future. But press reform must be made part and parcel of this process.

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, I must say I am very impressed by your patience for listening to the very long and repetitive speech of the NCMP which went on for one full hour.

As an open society, it is important that Singapore possesses a news media which is objective, fair, pragmatic, responsible and independent and which enjoys the freedom of speech. This is because it will facilitate the mutual transmission of the correct signals, the exchange of views and arguments, and dissemination of latest science and technology among the Government, the social organisations and the people of the various races, and even with the international communities. Personally, I admire the important roles played by our newspapers such as the Straits Times, Lianhe Zaobao, Business Times, Shin Min Daily News, Lianhe Wanbao, The New Paper, Berita Harian and Tamil Murasu. As independent and responsible news media of Singapore, they have spared no effort in promoting Singapore's development into an open and progressive society.

Opposition Members complain that they are not getting enough coverage in our local newspapers. On the other hand, my PAP colleagues often remark that the opposition members seem to attract more attention from the local press than they do. Even as the Deputy Chairman of the GPC for MITA, my picture does not appear in the newspapers as much as the opposition members.

I believe every newspaper has its own standards and guidelines, and our journalists certainly know their job. We cannot say that they do not have freedom of speech and we want the Government to liberalise the issue of more permits for more newspapers to be published in Singapore. I do not think this is a sensible argument and I cannot agree with it. I therefore oppose the motion tabled by the NCMP.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, journalism is a sacred job. The birth and growth of a newspaper is closely related to the degree of support it receives from its faithful readers. Whether a newspaper is successful or not, it is dependent not only on its format and design, its sophisticated printing or its interesting contents, it is also on whether it is responsible, whether its arguments are independent and free, and on the professionalism of its journalists. In addition, and more importantly, it would also depend on whether the inclination and social consciousness represented or reflected by the newspaper is accepted by the people or not, and whether the vast majority of the readers hold the view that this newspaper is credible, reliable and readable. This is something that is decided by the market situation. It is not something that the Government can manipulate or influence. If the market has a need and it feels that more newspapers should be published, I believe the publishers will naturally make the necessary application to the Government. So long as they comply with the necessary requirement, their application will be approved. This is a business activity and conduct. I do not think Parliament needs to be bothered about it. Nowadays, with all these gloomy economic downturns around us, I think it would do us well for Parliament to spend time discussing how to tide over this economic crisis. This is the really important issue. We should not waste time talking about such unimportant matters.

From the circulation figures I have obtained, the major newspapers in Singapore have a large readership. In other words, their independence, their reliability and their freedom of speech have been supported by the readers. This is evidenced by the daily circulation figures of the various newspapers in 1997. For Straits Times the figure is 376,900; Lianhe Zaobao, 199,300; Shin Min Daily News, 111,600; Lianhe Wanbao, 132,200; and Business Times, only 33,000.

If the Government wants to control all these newspapers, how can the contents of all these newspapers be so eventful, with a hundred flowers blossom, a hundred schools of thought contend? Besides, before the Government considers issuing the licence for a new newspaper to be published, we should also consider the future of our journalists. With an additional newspaper, it may have some adverse effect on their salaries and remuneration. If the circulation drops, and if the newspaper cannot grow, then their rice bowl would be in danger. Now that we are facing an economic crisis, we have to look after their rice bowl. We should not use our own perception of freedom to cause harm to them. Mr Jeyaretnam's perception of freedom cannot be used to feed these people.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have been in the publication industry for more than 20 years. There is one motto in our publication industry. It says that if you want to kill your friend or your enemy, the best method is to encourage him to invest in starting a newspaper. Because in Singapore, the market is small, our population is small, and investment in a newspaper is a very heavy one. It is not just $1 million or $2 million - much more than that, and the risk is high! Every day you have to publish. Yesterday's paper, even if you cannot sell it, you would have to print today's paper. And today's paper, you do not know whether you can sell or not, but tomorrow you will still have to publish. Whether your newspaper can sell or not, you have to edit, you have to write, you have to print every day. Finally, if you cannot sell your newspapers, you sell them cheaply to the karang guni man. The newspaper business is very, very capital-intensive. If you want your friend or your enemy to die, the best method is to encourage him to start a newspaper!

So I hope that Mr Jeyaretnam could understand this motto of the publication industry. Do not encourage people to start a newspaper. You will be causing much harm to them. According to the motion by Mr Jeyaretnam, the most ideal newspaper or publication in Singapore perhaps is The Hammer, that is published by the Workers' Party. The Hammer is published under his control. Whatever he writes, it can be published and hopefully it will enjoy good circulation. Maybe they are selling more than the Straits Times or the Lianhe Zaobao. I do not know. I am not sure. It is not easy. I think he knows best whether it is selling well or not.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, whether the newspaper comes under the Singapore Press Holdings or under another syndicate, it is not important. The most important question is whether this newspaper could report in a fair, objective and independent manner. Whether it could receive support from the readers, that is the most important thing! I feel that our local newspapers have also attained this. In view of that, I think we should not waste our time discussing the NCMP's motion.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin): Mr Peh Chin Hua says the newspaper in Singapore is eventful, with a hundred flowers blossom, and a hundred schools of thought contend. But we must not forget that there is actually only one newspaper, that is, the Singapore Press Holdings (SPH). Our Secretary-General has mentioned a while ago that the Chairman of SPH was a former PAP Cabinet Minister and its Executive Director was formerly the Director of the Internal Security Department. He said that the Singapore newspapers are like a hundred flowers blossom. But in fact, it is only one single flower blooming. One solitary stalk.

Mr Peh also talked about the readability and readership of a newspaper being dependent on whether a newspaper is responsible, independent or not, and he used the daily circulation figures to say that our Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao have great support from a very large readership. But he has forgotten, in Singapore, our readers have no other choices - Straits Times or Lianhe Zaobao. If you want to read the newspapers, these are the only newspapers you can get! So if you are talking about circulation figures and say, well, they are supported by a large following of readers, and you say they are independent, I think there is no logic to it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if we are talking about the present situation of newspapers in Singapore and claim that our population now is too small to support more newspapers here, then let us not forget that long before our population has attained the present state, we had at least two major Chinese newspapers, the Sin Chew Jit Poh and the Nanyang Siang Pau. Later on, we had Shin Min which was originally independent, but eventually it also became part of the Singapore Press Holdings. I do not know whether this merger was due to economic reasons or because of some political pressure causing them to merge. However, what is very apparent to us is, as what Mr Peh has said just now, it is a question of rice bowl. How much control there is on the newspaper, I would not be able to say. Only those who are working in the newspaper company will know. But very obviously under our Newspaper and Printing Presses Act there are certain restrictions, and the big bosses of SPH have close relationship with the Government. So, if you work in the newspapers, if your reporting causes some unhappiness to the Government, will it affect your rice bowl or not?

Perhaps the Government would say, "In the past, although it was possible for us to do so, we have never directed the newspapers as to what they should do." Very often, we say, "Well, if you know how to earn a living; you should know what to do. You know who your bosses are, you know what their preferences are." But, of course, I am not saying that our reporters and editors are all like that. But I think everyone has his conscience. I believe they have their own judgement. But because of this law and this management structure, there is a certain psychological pressure on them. Although the Government may not have to direct them what to do, they have to form their own judgement. There is an intangible pressure on them.

They themselves know there are certain things they cannot put in the newspapers. This is what they call self-censorship. The impression given to people is that the newspaper is just the voice of the Government. For different newspapers, whether it is Zaobao or Wanbao, reports on an event, more often than not, will turn out to be carrying the same mood, the same sentiment, the same view.

So, if there is any company or entrepreneur who wants to start a newspaper, I think the Government should take an open mind and issue a permit to him. Although now with advanced technology, there are different media, for example, the Internet, TV, etc., the newspaper is still the most popular news medium and a very important one. Whether it is independent, whether it is reliable, whether its reporting is balanced, would have a very important effect on the development of the society.

Just now, Mr Peh said that the opposition parties were well covered in the newspapers. Let us look at the reports, particularly those covering the General Elections - the election rallies. This coverage is very important, because Singaporeans must be well informed before they make their decisions and cast their votes. If anyone is to sit down and do a thorough, objective analysis of the coverage of all these election rallies in the local newspapers, it will be very obvious where the balance was. At other times, of course, the newspapers have different emphasis and different focus. But I believe the readers are very clear. We have different views and different perspectives of the balance of reporting in our Singapore newspapers. Are the Singapore newspapers biased? Is their reporting balanced? I think the readers know best. This question is best answered by the general newspaper readers in Singapore. 7.00 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information and the Arts (Encik Yatiman Yusof): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise on behalf of the Minister to oppose the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I was in Nevada in the early 80s, being invited by the American Press Institute to take up a newspaper editing course at the University of Nevada in the west coast of US. The content of lectures that I had heard during that course, about 18 years ago, ring familiar with the remarks made by the NMP today.

Mr Jeyaretnam: NCMP!

Encik Yatiman Yusof: NCMP, I am sorry. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore is an open society and an international trading and financial centre. As a financial centre, our markets must be as up to date as other major financial centres, such as London, New York or Tokyo. Singapore's economy is powered by a free flow of information. In recent years, we have also become a media hub. Today, no city in Asia has the same ready access to news wires, magazines, newspapers, television channels and the Internet.

There are currently over 40 cable TV channels in Singapore, of which more than three-quarters are foreign channels transmitted "live" through the Singapore Cable Vision (SCV). These include news channel like CNN, BBC and CNBC. The BBC has a 24-hour FM radio service operating in Singapore. International news agencies, such as Reuters, Bloomberg, AP, AFP and Nikkei are all represented in Singapore. Singapore is also served by numerous foreign newspaper magazines. The well-known ones among over 5,000 foreign publications like Time, The Economist, The Asian Wall Street Journal have significant circulations here.

Singaporeans, including the Opposition, have many channels of communication. No matter how they argue about the coverage during the election, Opposition Members can hold public meetings, publish party newsletters, write books and host Internet websites. The fact is that Singaporeans have many avenues for the free exchange of ideas and views.

Because there is such a diversity of news and information services, we need a "Singapore" perspective. The NMPs, Mdm Chiang and Mr Zulkifli, may use different languages but both believe that there is this need for a "Singapore" perspective. This "Singapore" perspective is important to hold us, Singaporeans, together. This is nothing new. Every region, every country in the world, would like to have their own perspective. Whether it is in the Middle East during the Middle East War, or even during the Falklands War, there is need for the countries in the region to establish their point of view, their perspective and to convince the world that there is another viewpoint. And for Singapore, such perspective is even more crucial because Singapore is a compact city-state populated by people of different races, languages, religions and cultures. Racial and religious emotions can easily be whipped up and passions inflamed by irresponsible rabble rousing. We also live in a complicated region which requires us to manage our foreign relations in a sensitive way.

In short, Singapore has managed the information flow by not blocking it. And we believe in it. We would not block it but by stating our point of view in competition with the world view. So our local media understand this position and they share this position. Our newspapers have a "Singapore" perspective, seeking to forge consensus and facilitate nation-building. They understand that they best serve Singapore by accurate reporting, clear analysis and intelligent interpreting of events and developments through Singapore eyes for Singapore minds.

The local press, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, has not adopted an adversarial role just because news organisations in some countries have done so. Singapore does not subscribe to the US model of the press as a "fourth estate". We have never and we will never. I am happy to note that the NMP, Mr Zulkifli too, believes in a non-adversarial press.

However, it is in the interest of Singapore to have a press that reports accurately and objectively. The press can disagree and debate on national policies with the Government, encourage public dialogue and convey divergent viewpoints. We do not control the press. We do not control what the press publishes. They are free to publish what they want based on their editorial policy and professional judgement, provided they uphold and protect our national interests and national cohesiveness. For our society to hold together, it needs institutions and high points which citizens look up to. The media has the responsibility to preserve these high points and not diminish them unnecessarily.

Public surveys have shown that the local press is well regarded by Singaporeans. Its credibility among Singaporeans is higher than the credibility of the established Western newspapers among their own readers.

The NCMP, Mr Jeyaretnam, calls upon the Government to announce its readiness to grant a licence to a newspaper company. As pointed out by the NMP, Mdm Claire Chiang, it is academic because it is a hypothetical question. The party has yet to submit a request. I would like to inform Members in this Chamber that in March last year in this House, during the Budget debate, the Minister for Information and the Arts stated that if the market can accommodate another newspaper, we will not disallow it. Like existing newspapers, a new newspaper must operate within the NPPA.

One requirement is that newspapers published in Singapore must not come under foreign control as they must feel a deep sense of responsibility for Singapore. They must guard Singapore's interest when dealing with sensitive issues such as defence, internal security, race, language and religion.

Newspapers which circulate widely here must also give Government the right of reply, a subject which the NCMP had raised earlier. We do not stop reports which disagree with the Government. As an international trading and financial centre, it is not in our interest to stop such reports. But local and foreign newspapers must allow the Government to correct their unfair or inaccurate reports. This is important because the Government must be able to put across its case to Singaporeans to which it is responsible.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the question is whether the local newspaper is partisan as it does not, as both of them claim, give the Opposition sufficient coverage during the GE. This is a matter of opinion. Many of our fellow PAP MPs were complaining that they were not given enough coverage, far much less than the Opposition during the GE. On one-to-one, on per square inch covered by the newspapers during the GE, I can bet the Opposition got far more coverage than the Government candidate. Let us measure the pages, see the pictures, and see its quantum coverage, including the heading.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the NCMP, in his long speech, said that press freedom is the hallmark of a civil society and insists that a free press is an important institution to achieve the targeted freedom of expression. Let me remind the hon. Member that in any country, America included, there must be some rules pertaining to expression. I read a report some time ago, when Rupert Murdoch wanted to buy a radio and TV network in America, he could not do so because he is not an American. He is an Australian. So I think it is not fair to impose demands on Singapore when in other countries, where the NCMP had quoted widely on the so-called right of expression and freedom, they are also having their own rules. And we understand that this is highly necessary for a society to have some regulation, otherwise it would not work. He argued by saying that people have the right to know. Is he saying that the local press which have shared increased circulation over the years have been denying the readers from the information that they were looking for? If that is the case, is it not only logical for the readers to react by not buying the newspaper and thus reducing the circulation? If that is the case, how do we reconcile the point raised by my colleague, Mr Peh Chin Hua, that the circulation of all the newspapers, The Straits Times, Lianhe Zaobao, Berita Harian had increased? Lack of choice? I think the answer is quite clear.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Lack of choice.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order, order. Mr Jeyaretnam, at least for this debate, I believe all MPs have sat down listening very carefully to you. So would you do the same?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sorry, Sir.

Encik Yatiman Yusof: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. If that is the case, in an open market, in a free market, readers would react and the readers' reaction did not confirm Mr Jeyaretnam's assertion that they are being deprived and denied of information. So where is the logic of his argument? And he argued that his principle of freedom of information and press is not only western-oriented, it is being practised in India, Thailand and Sri Lanka. I just want to ask him this question: yes, I agree, but at what cost? Look at Sri Lanka, India and Thailand. They find great difficulties in achieving consensus and moving the society towards one direction, therefore providing long-term benefit to every individual in society. Is that not a more basic right than merely giving the right of expression? So these are the points which, I believe, must have been misread by the NCMP and I hope his presentation would not influence our mind.

Then he argued too that in order to be democratic, we must believe in what SM had said in 1950s and 1960s. We have to accept that time has changed and it requires intelligent-minded people, rational people who believe in the future of the society, to think along the line where the overall benefit of the community is being secured first.

Many speakers had used the NPPA as an argument. I think all of them, except one, used this argument either to hint that because of the NPPA and the presence of the management shares, the editors and journalists are afraid, as what Mr Low Thia Khiang said, that the "rice bowl" factor can cause them to think twice and protect their interest. I was an editor before, for many years. I must confess to the House that under no circumstances did I move away from performing my duty as a responsible editor of a newspaper.

Let me first take some time to explain this management share and the fear, implication and imputation that the management shares had been the key factor in -

(a) resulting with the Straits Times or SPH group losing its credibility among its readers;

(b) the feeling of fear among the editors, hence, self-censorship among them;

(c) the income from advertisers; and

(d) the belief that editors can be changed.

I asked for some figures on these, the total list of the SPH shares. The management shares that we are talking about - every newspaper will have two types of shares: ordinary shares and management shares. For each management share, the holder will have 200 votes. Let us go through the figures. The SPH has, as I was told, about 3.4 million management shares, multiplied by 200, it is translated into 740 million votes. Out of these 740 million votes, two-thirds of the votes belong to private companies. Only one-third of the votes, of these management shares, are owned by the Singapore Telecommunications Limited, the DBS, POSB - three major banks plus people that the NCMP had named, such as Mr Lim Kim San, Mr Michael Fam, Mr Lee Hee Seng, Mr Wee Cho Yaw, Mr Tang I-Fang, Mr Tjong Yik Min, Mr Cheong Choong Kong. These individuals of 10 persons have total votes of 2,000. Together with these Government-owned companies and the 10 people, we have not more than one-third of the share. With one-third of the share, can we vote to change the director or the editor of a newspaper? Simple arithmetic will say that this is not possible.

Therefore, the Government has no control whatsoever over the appointment of the editor or director of the SPH because the remaining two-thirds of the voting powers are in the hands of private companies such as the Great Eastern Life Assurance, OCBC, Overseas Assurance Corporation Limited, UOB, OUB, Fraser and Neave. These are companies with tremendous credential and they were successful because of their independent mindedness and these are the groups that are holding majority share in the SPH. I think once and for all, let us go through the figure, compute and see whether all these assumptions, presumptions and imputations are true indeed. But let me assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that this is not so.

Referring to the speech made by the NMP, Mr Zulkifli, I am encouraged to hear that Mr Zulkifli feels an unfettered press is not for Singapore and that some checks and guidelines need to be in place. In his speech, he gave six reasons why he supported the motion. He believes that there should be, first, competition, and second, there must be debate and newspapers must provide these two elements - debate and competition. His third and fourth points are inter-related. He talked about having an independent but non-adversarial newspaper and claimed that the Board of Directors and the editor of the SPH are generally perceived as biased or pro-Government. And for that reason, amongst others, the SPH has credibility problem with its readers.

I have explained in terms of numbers, management shares which have been shrouded in darkness, that is not so. The Government does not appoint editors or the Board of Directors, though the Government's approval is required for any person to hold management shares. The whole point of management shares is so that newspapers, which are important national institutions, are run responsibly in the interest of Singapore. Today, as I said earlier, the majority of the management shares are held in the hands of the private people, by established corporations which are among those which have significantly contributed to Singapore's success.

Fifthly, Mr Zulklifi also talked about setting up of a Press Commission or, what he said, a Press Council. In Singapore, many different professions have come together to establish bodies to cater to their respective professional interests, set guidelines to self-regulate their industry and so forth. For example, the advertising industry has come together to set up ASAS and the broadcasters have set up the Broadcasters Association of Singapore. If the media fraternity is keen on setting up a body like a Press Council or Press Commission, I think it is for them to decide.

Finally, he suggested that by providing freer environment, there could be a community-based newspaper being set up at the local level, say, town council. I would like to assure the Member that, as the Minister has assured during the Budget Debate, the avenue is open. And if it is commercially viable, why not? Somebody should take the lead. But we should leave it to the town council or the regional council to decide. Currently, the town councils I understand, are having their own monthly bulletins. If some of them thought that they could run a daily or weekly publication, it is up to them and I think MITA would look at their application seriously.

I would also like to comment on views expressed by other speakers. Mr Low Thia Khiang said that the SPH newspapers are like flowers blooming from one stem, if I may translate correctly his metaphor. But he again insinuated that it was not independent and casts doubts on the merger of the Sin Chew Jit Poh and Nanyang Siang Pao into Lianhe Zaobao and asked why Shin Min decided not to be together. I think the people who run the newspapers will have valid commercial consideration as to why Shin Min must remain Shin Min and not being bound together and why Sin Chew Jit Poh and Nanyang Siang Pao are kept together. In Malaysia, where they have a similar paper, they remain so. It is best that we do not speculate because I believe that it is purely a business consideration. The question of NPPA, big bosses having close relationship with the Government and the psychology of fear and the rice bowl issues that he played up, as I have pointed out earlier, have no basis because I myself had experienced that.

On the points made by Mdm Claire Chiang, I respect her position that she believes that there must be competition and an alternative view prevailing in Singapore. But she leaves it for the market to decide whether this competition and provision of alternative view via the press could be sustained commercially. But when we talk about competition of ideas, the press is not the only media where such competition could take place. People are talking about having a Hyde Park corner in Singapore for free speech. In fact, our Internet is far more effective, more blunt, and a more frank form of Hyde Park and it spreads far beyond the shores of Singapore. I think that is the avenue in which everyone can move into and use. The Minister, in answering a question earlier, had said that we do not think that we should apply high-handedness in imposing censorship. So there is such a thing as an alternative media for us to go into.

For the reasons I have stated, I urge Members of this Chamber to reject the motion.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am most grateful for the views that have been expressed in this House this afternoon and particularly, I welcome the views that have been expressed by the two NMPs. But before I reply to some of these points, may I make it quite clear that I am not advocating or encouraging that control of our newspapers, the press, should be left in the hands of foreigners. I thought that was clear from what I said. It should be left in the hands of our people but not in the hands of the Government. The fallacy in Singapore is the impression that is sought to be created by the Government, that if you are a true Singaporean, if you are a loyal Singaporean, then you have got to be loyal to the government of the day. That is a complete fallacy. It is the duty of a citizen if he thinks that the Government is doing anything that is wrong, it is his bounden duty to oppose the Government, not to shout "Aye, aye, aye" to everything that the Government says. And in opposing the Government, he is not disloyal to Singapore. On the contrary, he is showing where his loyalty lies, with the people. So, let us make it quite clear that I am not advocating that the control of our papers should be placed in the hands of foreigners.

I am not advocating that the press should be completely unregulated and should be free to publish seditious material or material that might jeopardise the harmony that exists between the various communities or the different religious communities in Singapore. But we have the laws of the land which take care of that. And any newspaper which falls foul of this law can be taken to task and prosecuted, and then, if necessary, if it continues, have its licence taken away. The problem, I think, in Singapore, is the equation of the perspective of Singapore and the national interests and the goals for Singapore is equated to what the Government, the party in power, decides what perspective it should be, what the national interest should be, what the goals should be. This is, as I said, the antithesis of democracy.

The balance of power should remain with the people and it is the people who should decide what the national interests are, what the goals are. In this task of the people, the duty of the people, the press has an important role to play, as their voice.

Mr Zulkifli also mentioned, as I did, about the establishment of a council. We should think very seriously of moving away from Government regulation of the press to the public regulation of the press. As I said, this was voiced in 1974 that the Government had been thinking of a press council, but nothing has come of it. It is time we set up a press council in Singapore composed, as I said, not of people who see things the way that the PAP sees it or the Government sees it, but who see it independently for Singapore as to what is good for Singapore.

May I come to reply to the points raised by the various speakers. The first speaker mentioned about Government control in Singapore being very minimal. The perception, as has been mentioned by the Member for Hougang, among Singaporeans is that the press speaks only for the Government and it is the Government's voice.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Government control exists not by perhaps Government issuing orders day by day to the editors and to the journalists in the papers in Singapore, but the self-restraint or censorship that is practised by the press themselves. You may recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think you were in the House then when I was here, when one paper, I think it was the Business Times or was it another paper, carried a very strong editorial on the pronouncement by the late Minister for National Development, Mr Teh Cheang Wan, that opposition constituencies would be attended to last when it came to breakdowns of lifts or other emergency services. The editorial took a very strong line against it, but what happened? Within two hours or three hours, that issue was recalled and another issue was published. I brought this up in the House and I think it was the Senior Parliamentary Secretary who spoke on that and asked whether I was certain of what I was talking. Then I was fortunate enough to hand to him and to this House the earlier paper that had come out with a strong editorial. I do not know, and we will never know, whether that was because of a Government telephone call or a directive or whether it was a decision taken by those who ran the paper.

There was another instance, of course, that will be familiar to Members, of the feature writer who wrote quite a mild article about the disaffection among the people with the PAP and the Government. I mentioned this in our earlier debate. Then what happened? She ceased to write for the Straits Times. She was no longer writing. We are not to know whether it was a Government decision or whether it was a decision imposed by those who have control of the Straits Times.

As Prof. Tommy Koh observed in 1991, the press in Singapore has been under a cloud of fear, and that is how Government control is maintained. We do not need directives issued from the Government to the press every day. I think it was Lord Thompson, who controls the Thompson group of newspapers, who was asked, "Do you control what is published in your newspapers?" He said, "No, I don't. There is no need for me to exercise any control because of the editors and the men who run the papers. They know their duties and they will carry them out."

I am grateful to Madam Chiang for her perhaps qualified support. But she mentioned that the motion was academic because no application had been received. I think it misses the point. I do not think any self-respecting person will want to apply to run a newspaper in Singapore after seeing what happened to the Singapore Herald, the Eastern Standard, the Eastern Sun and all the other papers that have now gone off the scene.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, have you got any other new points to make? You are going over the same points again.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, I am trying to reply. That is why I said no one has applied.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Come to a new point.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am trying to explain why.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I know, but come to a new point.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right. I realise, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that time is running on. May I just deal with the replies given by the Minister of State? Could I deal with that?

Encik Yatiman Yusof: Senior Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sorry, Senior Parliamentary Secretary. He says the credibility of Singapore papers is high among Singaporeans. I do not know how he comes to that conclusion. I have met several people who have told me that they do not read the Straits Times, that they do not read the local press and they are quite happy to depend on other broadcasts, the BBC, for example, for news.

Encik Yatiman Yusof rose ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Do you want to give way, Mr Jeyaretnam?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, if he wishes to, on this credibility that Singaporeans hold the press in high esteem.

Encik Yatiman Yusof: Thank you, Mr Jeyaretnam. There was an academic study conducted in 1995 on the perception of the domestic press in Singapore. This study has shown that overall, about 70% of the random sample of people approached thought that the quality of the local newspapers was good and only 3.5% thought that the quality was bad or very bad. More than 36% of those surveyed said that they had a lot of confidence, some 54% had some confidence, and less than 10% had little or no confidence in our newspapers. I felt that the independent survey conducted by an academician is a clear indication of the kind of support that the newspapers are getting.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Senior Parliamentary Secretary refers to the survey. I do not know whether I have seen this survey, but the question is: who was approached for this survey and to whom were the questions addressed? We have to know a lot more about it. But may I assure him that he has only got to go and speak to the average Singaporean to ask what he thinks of the press in Singapore to find out in what esteem they hold the Singapore press. I think he will find a great unanimity among the people in Singapore that the press in Singapore speaks only for the Government. I have had people sending me copies of letters that they have written to the Straits Times which they said these were never published. They send them to me. I have got quite a number of those letters.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, I think we are dragging the debate a bit too far. Can you come to some new points? You are repeating yourself over and over again.

Mr Jeyaretnam: But I am trying to reply to his points now.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Can you listen to me first? My point is: come to a new point, otherwise you will be dragging this debate and we are going over and over a belaboured point. Continue with a new point.

Mr Jeyaretnam: As you please, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. If you think we should wrap up, I will wrap up. But I want to try and reply to his remarks.

Mr Deputy Speaker: All right. Do so.

Mr Jeyaretnam: If you think we should wrap up, I will sit down. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary says Singaporeans have great many opportunities for speaking up or disseminating information. He says opposition parties can hold public meetings. They do not have to rely on the Straits Times. What is the reality? There is an opposition leader who is being prosecuted because he tried to hold a public meeting. It ignores the realities in Singapore to say that Singaporeans are free to speak up and to disseminate information. We are still dependent on a free press to speak up for us, and that is not happening in Singapore. So long as the press remains under this iron grip of the Government, we are not going to get information. That is why it is important that we now take the step to see that our people get the information that they are entitled to, information of Government activities, the transparency that the Government keeps talking about, transparency in Government administration. That is simply not happening in Singapore because we do not have an independent press.

Question put, and negatived.

Motion accordingly negatived.