SINGAPORE BROADCASTING AUTHORITY (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Information and the Arts (Mr Lee Yock Suan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

During the debate on my Ministry's budget on 9th March, I announced the Government's intention to amend the Singapore Broadcasting Authority (SBA) Act for the purpose of restraining foreign broadcasters from any interference in Singapore's domestic politics. I explained that the foreign media operate here as a matter of privilege and not of right. We welcome them to come to Singapore to report on local and regional developments, based on the principles of accuracy, fairness and balance. However, they must not engage in our domestic politics, as this is the preserve of Singaporeans.

In 1986 Parliament amended the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) to gazette and limit the circulation of foreign newspapers which engage in the domestic politics of Singapore. This Bill extends the same principles to foreign television channels which are rebroadcast in Singapore by Singapore Cable Vision (SCV).

Since 1995 when SCV began operations, the number of foreign channels available to Singaporeans has increased from a few to 40 channels today. Out of these channels, five are specialised news channels, namely, CNBC Asia, CNN International, BBC World, CTN and Bloomberg. Subscription to SCV cable TV has also grown to 260,000 today. The penetration rate was 26% in January and is expected to exceed 40% by 2005. Clearly cable TV can have a significant impact on our domestic audience. Rationale for New Rules

Sir, this Bill makes it clear to foreign broadcasters that whilst they can sell their services to Singaporeans, they should not interfere with our domestic politics. Foreign broadcasters are outsiders and not participants in our political scene.

As outsiders and observers, they can report on Singapore. They should do so factually and accurately, without bias or distortion. However, they should not be involved in local political issues, or try to influence Singaporeans on such issues. In our General Elections, for example, they should not take sides either for or against any political party or politician in their reporting.

Our position on this matter is a reasonable one. Singaporeans should decide the fate of Singapore and not foreigners. Foreign broadcasters have no stake in Singapore. If their reporting creates problems, they will not suffer the consequences. For example, if incendiary reporting causes racial riots and destabilises Singapore, it is Singaporeans who suffer as confidence collapses and jobs are lost.

Other countries like Canada and the UK also have legal safeguards to prevent outside interference. The Canada Elections Act 2000 prohibits the use of a broadcasting station outside Canada by any person for the purpose of influencing an election in Canada. The Act also stipulates that no foreigner should try to influence voters during an election in Canada. The UK Representation of the People Act 1983 similarly prohibits any person from using a broadcasting station outside the UK to influence an election in the UK. Such programmes can only be carried by local broadcasters which are subject to a legal duty and a code of practice to be politically impartial.

Engaging in Domestic Politics

In Singapore the NPPA has set the ground rules for foreign newspapers to operate here. Many of them have sizeable circulation in Singapore. This policy of non-interference in domestic politics and our right of reply are established policies which over the years the foreign publications have come around to accept.

The notion of what constitutes "engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore" in the NPPA was tested in court in 1989. The High Court ruled that reports or editorial comments which went beyond what was factual could amount to "engaging in domestic politics", if they were made with a view to espouse political ideas or to influence public opinion. The court also explained that the provision in the NPPA made clear that the domestic politics of Singapore is a matter reserved for Singaporeans.

The proposed amendment to the SBA Act follows similar principles. As provided in the Bill, the Minister will decide whether a foreign broadcasting service is "engaging in domestic politics". This will be based on reasonable and proper grounds.

Let me illustrate with some examples. The first example is a foreign broadcaster which denies Singapore the right of reply to inaccurate, biased, or distorted reporting of issues concerning Singapore. A second example is one which conducts political broadcasts such as advertising directed towards a political end or programmes featuring any politician who pays the broadcaster or is paid by the broadcaster, or remunerated in other ways, to appear in the broadcast. A third example is a foreign broadcaster which conducts broadcasts made with a view to espouse political ideas or to influence public opinion in Singapore. All these can be deemed as "engaging in domestic politics". A decision has to be made based on the particular circumstances of the case and this may vary according to time and context.

Amendment to SBA Act

Let me now highlight some aspects of the Bill. Under the new section 42A, subsection (1) will empower the Minister, by order published in the Gazette, to declare any foreign broadcasting service carried on any relevant licensable broadcasting service as engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore. Subsection (2) requires the Minister's prior approval for any person to rebroadcast in Singapore any declared foreign broadcasting service. Subsection (3) empowers the Minister to approve the rebroadcast in Singapore, subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, or he may refuse or revoke such approval.

Under subsection (4), the Minister may restrict the number of persons who may receive the service and may suspend the service for a specified period. Under subsection (5), the penalty for contravening subsection (2) or failing to comply with a condition imposed under subsection (3a) is a fine not exceeding $100,000 upon conviction.

Scope of coverage

The amendment will apply to foreign broadcasters carried on SCV's cable network. However, with rapid advances in technology, there will be new ways of delivering television services. Where appropriate we could in future include as licensable broadcasting services other broadcasting platforms when they become relevant, but for now the amendments apply only to foreign broadcasting services carried on SCV.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Sir, we welcome foreign broadcasters to broadcast in or from Singapore. We will extend all facilities to help them operate successfully here. However, those who broadcast to Singapore audiences should provide objective and accurate reporting and not engage in the domestic politics of Singapore. If a foreign broadcaster chooses to abuse the privilege, it will have to suffer the financial penalty of a restriction in distribution or advertising in Singapore.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (East Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. I understand the rationale for the proposed amendments to the Singapore Broadcasting Authority Act requiring that foreign broadcasters should not engage themselves in our domestic politics, as the Minister has said, as this is the preserve of Singaporeans. The Bill basically amends the SBA Act to bring it in line with the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (last amended in 1986) regarding the role of foreign media in our domestic politics.

I therefore anticipate little problems in its implementation as I believe over the years, the foreign media have come around to accept our policy on their involvement in our domestic politics, the need for accurate and objective reporting and our right of reply. However, I would like to address this Bill by looking at its economic impact, both directly and indirectly, on Singapore and our efforts to promote Singapore as a media hub in Asia.

In our drive to be a media hub in Asia, we have been successful in recent years in attracting a number of foreign broadcasters to set up shop in Singapore, including Discovery Channel, MTV Asia and CNBC Asia. Singapore is now able to compete strongly with foreign broadcasters who have previously located themselves in Hong Kong, Australia and Japan.

Because we have managed to market ourselves as such, leveraged on our strategic location, advanced communications infrastructure and availability of skilled and creative manpower, we have already created the platform for a more sustainable drive to achieve our aim to be the media hub in Asia. Indeed, this has led to positive economic activity and growth in recent years, in both our broadcasting as well as the media entertainment industries, both of which have benefited greatly from the participation of these foreign broadcasters in our local media scene.

Sir, in this time of potential economic downturn, the direct job creation as a result of our media hub policy, the exposure of our local talents who are working for these foreign broadcasters, and the ability to attract creative and talented foreigners who are now based in Singapore, have all contributed positively to our economy. In addition, direct competition from foreign broadcasters based here, has also forced our local broadcasters to upgrade their skills and services and improve standards. The success of our Channel News Asia is a testament to the fruits of this policy in recent years.

As such, Sir, I am concerned whether the introduction of this Bill, though it has its social merits, will affect Singapore's ongoing efforts to be the regional media hub and broadcasting centre. I understand that the immediate impact may be limited as there are still only a small number of foreign broadcasters based here. However, I would like to ask if the Ministry has assessed the potential impact of this Bill on our efforts currently underway to promote and develop our media hub strategy. Has the Ministry made an assessment of the economic impact if potential entrants and investments to Singapore in this industry are deterred from completing projects, starting new ones, or even slowing their participation here?

An observation that has been reflected by critics even in our local press is that, whilst the impact of the Bill may appear insignificant and negligible financially, it carries other implications, not least the suggestion that it is a key piece of the Government's pre-election jigsaw puzzle. Whilst I do not subscribe to this view, I recognise that the Bill may potentially send a wrong signal to foreign broadcasters who are considering setting up shop here. Worse, existing ones may even wish to pull out totally from Singapore. This is anathema to what we are trying to do to develop this industry.

In short, Sir, I support the Bill and will be grateful if the Minister would give his comments on these observations and perhaps reassure the House that the Bill would not affect Singapore's hard won status as an emerging media and broadcasting hub. In addition, it would be important to many interested parties who are closely watching these developments, if the Minister would reaffirm that the Government remains committed to promoting the broadcasting industry.

Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): (In Mandarin): Sir, the introduction of the Singapore Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill is because we are opening our media to the outside world. Whenever people talk about opening the media in Singapore, most people will associate it with the coming hot battle between MediaCorp and Singapore Press Holdings.

Actually, the opening up of our media started in the 1980s, that is, the opening of our media to the outside world when we allowed foreign publications to circulate in Singapore. Since 1995, we have also allowed foreign television stations into the homes of every Singaporean with the introduction of cable vision. As a matter of fact, seriously speaking, the opening of our media to the outside world started even earlier than its opening to our domestic market.

However, if we were to tell the foreigners that there are some 40 foreign television channels and a few thousand foreign publications available in Singapore, many of them may not believe us. They would ask, "Is it true? Isn't the Singapore Government keeping a very tight control on everything? Do you not have a ban on chewing gum and even install urine detectors in the lifts of your public housing estates to catch people urinating there? And, of course, you restrict the circulation of foreign publications!"

This is indeed the gap between reality and image. The main reason for the existence of such a gap is that the foreign media often make criticism against some of the Singapore Government's policies. Our policy all along has been that we want to have a rule-by-law society in Singapore, and there are certain social values which we want to uphold. The foreign media can criticise our policies, but they are not allowed to interfere in our domestic politics.

This is the most fundamental principle. Some people may feel that we are behind time when we apply the rules and regulations governing the press in the 80s to the 21st century television media. My view is that while times have changed, and technology has changed the mode of operation of the media, there are some basic principles that remain unchanged. All the countries in the world agree that they should not interfere in one another's domestic politics. Why cannot we stop the foreign media from interfering in our domestic politics? Foreign journalists can be Singapore's political observers, but they should not be participants in Singapore's politics. This fundamental principle will never change.

When the western media talk about freedom of the press, they always talk plausibly and at length. But from the examples of what had happened in Singapore in the past, we can tell that they are having double standards in their definition of freedom. The foreign media would use some unreliable and inaccurate data to distort the facts. When our Government demanded a verification, and even suggested purchasing advertising space to refute all these fallacious reports, they refused. Our Newspapers and Printing Presses Act prohibits foreign newspapers from interfering in Singapore's political affairs. This Act has been in force for many years. It is clearly understood by the foreign media. They can report anything in accordance with the facts of the matter. They can comment, but they cannot distort the facts. They are not allowed to participate in or influence our politics. Otherwise, their circulation would be restricted, and in cases of serious violation, their permit will be revoked.

I support the extension of this principle to apply to the foreign television media. The foreign television media can report on the politics of Singapore, comment on our politics, but they should not participate in our domestic politics and influence our people's decision on our political development.

With this amendment to the Singapore Broadcasting Authority Act, they will once again criticise us of having no press freedom here. I would like to ask the Minister for Information and the Arts what plans his Ministry has to promote Singapore's image in terms of media opening. Our long-term plan of developing Singapore into a regional media hub should not be hampered by the introduction of this Amendment Bill. Our image should not be tarnished.

I remember in 1986, when the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act was introduced, the western media pointed an accusing finger on us and claimed that this was a clear evidence of the lack of press freedom in Singapore.

In 1989, the then Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, personally went to the United States of America to meet face-to-face with more than 300 international journalists. I was then one of the journalists in our Singapore delegation. I discovered that many of these journalists did not really understand the situation in Singapore. They could only say that by restricting the circulation of a certain foreign publication we were violating the principle of press freedom. They asked why was it that in Asia, places like India and the Philippines could have press freedom, but Singapore could not. Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew's reply was that he understood Singapore better. The US model was not universally applicable and valid everywhere. The media of the various countries play different roles in their respective countries, owing to their different historical experience, political systems and makings of their people. The function represented by their civilisation and the function manifested by the media in different environments are equally effective.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when we are opening up our media to the outside world, the introduction of this Amendment Bill is necessary and important.

I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.52 pm until 3.15 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.15 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to speak on this Bill, but after hearing the Minister throw the terms "non-interference with domestic politics" and "objective reporting", I was very tempted to ask him whether he would try and define more clearly what interference in domestic politics is this all about, and what does he consider to be "objective reporting". And does he think or does the Ministry think that it accords with natural justice that a Minister of the Government should be the one to decide these questions? Is it not contrary to commonsense and rationality? One cannot be the judge and the prosecutor at the same time.

If the Ministry must have this Bill, will it consider setting up what they have in other countries, ie, a press council - perhaps, in Singapore, a Press and Broadcasting Council - not just consisting of the Minister alone or anyone appointed by the Minister, but a council drawn from the publicity media and from other professional organisations, which will then decide whether any report in the papers, on TV or radio is objective or not objective, and whether it amounts to interference in domestic politics?

Mr Ravindran: Sir, we are a small country. We are a young society with different ethnic, language and religious groups. Our society can be torn into pieces if race, language or religion is played up and exploited by anyone. We have tried to ensure that Singapore's destiny is determined only by Singaporeans. We have always been wary of foreigners getting involved in local politics as their motives and agenda will be very different from Singaporeans'.

Sir, the media play a critical role in any modern society. They influence opinions, mould minds, and even have the ability to direct the course of events. Foreign intelligence agencies are known to have infiltrated media organisations to influence the editorials and the colour of reporting. At times, western countries' foreign policy objectives are achieved by cleverly feeding the western media with bias or slanted facts and incomplete data. These are carried as factual reports by many renowned news organisations without verification, in many cases due to fierce competition and timely reporting. Even big businesses are known to have penetrated media groups to lobby business interests and also sabotage Third World countries. Even some global NGOs, democratic foundations and human rights groups cultivate journalists and media owners to project and further their agenda. Sir, the western nations know the influence of the media and, in some countries, have imposed conditions that the local media cannot be owned wholly by foreigners.

Sir, I am glad that our Government has already imposed the requirement that the foreign print media cannot engage in domestic politics. The proposed amendment in the Singapore Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Bill seeks to impose the same requirement on foreign broadcasters who rebroadcast in Singapore, to prevent them from engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore. Sir, it is critical that foreign broadcasters be subject to the same conditions as the foreign print media as, otherwise, this loophole will be cleverly exploited by the foreign broadcasters.

Sir, with cable television, Singaporeans can now receive five channels, namely, CNBC Asia, CNN, BBC, CTN and Bloomberg. Subscriptions to SCV now stand at 260,000. The penetration rate is expected to increase from 26% to 40% by 2005, as stated by the Minister. Multiply the subscription numbers with the household number of four per family, and the reach becomes more than one million people. Sir, it is timely that this amendment has been introduced. It will ensure that the arena for domestic politics in Singapore is only for Singaporeans.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Simon Tay: Sir, I stand to express some misgivings about the Bill. Let me first consider some of the statements made by the Minister in his explanatory remarks introducing the Bill for Second Reading. The Minister, if I remember correctly, gave examples of laws in Canada and the UK. I would like to point out though that our laws are, I think, much broader than the two examples he has given.

First, as far as I understand those laws - I do not have them in front of me - they deal with foreign broadcasts, ie, broadcasting from outside the country and that then penetrates inside, a bit like what Voice of America does, or a bit like what most of us can receive from stations in Malaysia. Here, however, the Minister wants to target people who are, with our consent, accessing our cable, and who may have, in many cases, started up Singapore subsidiaries. And the law actually is crafted so broadly it would cover these companies which are Singapore companies, branch offices and other businesses in Singapore, so long as, according to new section 42A(6), they would be considered to be owned, controlled or managed by somebody outside Singapore.

The second way in which the laws proposed are broader, as compared to the two examples he brought up, was that, if I again recollect what the Minister said, those laws targeted influence during the time of election, whereas this Bill would seem to cover media reports year-long, any time, anything. So, if those two examples are the ones that really concerned our Government, we should be targeting much more narrowly because, otherwise, we do risk overshooting the mark and having unforeseen circumstances, such as the erosion of our ability to be a credible media centre, not just for our own media, but for the media we wish to attract to us.

I would say also I remain to be convinced as to this question: why SCV? It seems to me that is only because we can do it. It is as simple as turning off a tap. It seems to me that, really, the penetration through airwaves of Malaysian TV is as pervasive, and we are not doing it because it is harder to do, or politically harder to do. But it smacks of inequality, if we really are concerned about so-called foreigners. And that comes back to my point: what is the mischief?

In his introductory remarks, the Minister has not mentioned any particular case or instance of recent recollection that triggers off our concern in introducing these wider powers, and I encourage him to do so, perhaps in his closing remarks.

Let me go on, Sir, to two other levels of the debate. I think the first of the levels is, how are we going to make this consistent with the print media? The Minister has pointed out that we already have laws that give similar powers over print media. They do have similar problems. What is the scope of engaging in domestic politics? I think that has been a troubling issue for both print and broadcast media. There are also, however, additional problems.

In the written media, when we proscribe circulation, we still allow limited copies, say, 1,000 copies, libraries only. So we can face the world which will ask about these laws. We can face the world and say, "We are not about circumscribing entirely the freedom of information. We are about trying to hit you in the pocket place so you cannot make money and lie about us at the same time." That was what I understood to be our policy about the print media. And, therefore, when we see the measure imposed on print media, it is a limited circulation. Sometimes it is 6,000 copies. I do not see how this is going to work with SCV. It is like a tap. It is going to be either on or off. We are, in that sense, doing something quite different from the print media. We are going to turn off that tap.

The second level of the debate is, frankly, I am not convinced that we should be expanding this law to cover a new area of media. Nor am I when the Minister says that when there is a convergence of other media like the Internet, we might consider expanding it even further. I really think we should be thinking about going the other way. We should be reconsidering whether we really need anymore to control foreign print media against engaging in our domestic politics because, Sir, I think our policies have stood us well. A lot of the print media have already understood the lesson. I think Singapore today enjoys a much more favourable press than before. And my concern is that these laws would stand to damage that increased enhanced international reputation, reduce our standing as a hub for media of all types and with economic impact on competition with Hong Kong and other players.

I would also like to point out that, over time, there has crept in a redundancy in many of the ways our laws are administered. If I understand correctly, sometimes when we limit circulation on the print media, we still are above what their subscription rate is anyway, ie, if our limit is 6,000, their active subscribers in Singapore may be 5,000. And so we pay the penalty for having these laws on the books and having these rubber stamps on the print media, when we really are not achieving anything by it.

What should we do then? I do not think that we should, of course, leave foreigners to run Singapore politics. That is the prerogative of Singaporeans. But I think what we need to do is something quite different. We have shifted policies before. In the 1970s and 80s, we used to throw out journalists - revoked their licences and told them to go away - and they went away yelling to everyone that they were heroes for having taken on Singapore. Now it seems that we want to de-license them and, I am afraid, the same thing will happen. I would encourage us to do internationally what we do in this House, which is to debate. There is increasingly a media that will cover our Government's side of the story. Our Government leaders, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, are well-known international figures. If they wish to speak, people will listen. Our own media, like Channel NewsAsia and Radio Singapore International, these have regional ambitions and can help us project our voice in addition to the international media that will listen to us.

If anything, Sir, I would encourage the Minister and the Government to legislate a right of reply. This can be equal in airtime. And this is done, as far as I understand it, in some federal laws in the USA for radio and other new media, although not newspapers.

In this light, Sir, in the emphasis on debate, it troubles me that the proposed section 42A(3)(c) reads that the Minister may revoke a licence "without assigning any reason". Sir, if we ever want to revoke a licence, it should be with reason. We should go out to defend our position and not be thought of being too over-sensitive or protecting our own narrow self-interests.

Sir, as a Singaporean, I do resent unfounded ignorant commentary about our country. I remember in the early 1990s, there was an Australian documentary. I cannot really remember its name, but I remember vividly a visual of HDB flats with a voice-over that said that these were slums in the sky. At first I felt very angry, and then I just laughed. I think any Singaporean who saw such a documentary, who hears such wild lies about Singapore, would not think less of Singapore, because they know Singapore. They will think less of the documentary. And I would urge the Minister to narrow these laws and, more, have faith in Singaporeans to judge for themselves.

Dr Jennifer Lee (Nominated Member): Sir, I have just one small point to raise and it relates also to something that Mr Simon Tay has already spoken on. With regard to new section 42A(3)(c) which prescribes for rebroadcast, the Minister may revoke his approval at any time without assigning any reason. This assigning to Minister the authority to disapprove and revoke approvals at any time, and without giving any reason, seems to be a favourite clause, not only of this, but of many, pieces of legislation passed, and I am sure to come.

Let me say that I have no dispute with the prescription that the Minister's decision be final. But that is quite different from saying that the Minister does not give any reasons at all for that decision. I think that in this day and age in Singapore, we would surely wish to have the Minister share his reasons for his decisions. Firstly, we are looking at increased transparency and, secondly, related to transparency so that in fact all parties involved will have an understanding of Government's reasoning and position and therefore be guided in their actions and behaviour in the future. Finally, it can surely only be in the greater interest of all that Ministers and their officers assisting and advising them are subject to the rigour and discipline of having the rationale for their decisions open to public scrutiny.

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin: Sir, I agree with the general intention of the Bill because it is not the interest of foreign media to interfere or engage in domestic politics. But the proposed amendment, as it stands before the House, appears to be very confusing to me. Under the Bill, the Government is simultaneously the plaintiff, judge and executioner in disputes with foreign media. I agree that the Bill, as it stands, is very efficient in dealing with media who we can prove to have interfered with domestic politics. But is it really effective? Because as it stands, it may create a very serious credibility problem simply because of the conflict of positions that the Government will be placed upon. Quite often, this negative reporting is directed and intended possibly at the Government who would be most affected, and if it is for the Government itself to make such a decision, I think that is going to be very confusing.

Therefore, one possible improvement to the Bill is to get an advisory committee, comprising respected members of the society involved. MITA has several such committees advising the Minister in dealing with the various media. An existing committee or new committee can be roped in to advise in the application of gazetting powers. The Government can submit the available evidence to the committee. The committee members can then decide first whether the offending broadcaster or publication amounts to an interference in politics, and, if so, what the appropriate sanctions would be. In reality, it is very difficult to decide.

I hope that the Minister would clarify what tantamount to interference with local politics. Take the case of elections. If a foreign broadcaster were to portray a particular candidate or opposition candidate in good light, would that tantamount to interference with local politics, even if it is just a factual story? We have seen that by attending briefings given by opposition parties in some cases may tantamount to interference with local politics. We have to be very clear about the definition.

There is also the other question that earlier Members raised, ie, how do you term "broadcasting service" where it involves the print media and how this is available on the Internet.

The other concern I have is how the foreign media will have an impact on the public opinion of our citizens, and I think the best person to decide is the public themselves whether they have been affected by the kind of reporting that is brought about by the foreign media. I think it is entirely appropriate in this case to have a committee to look at it. Of course, the procedure may mean that the Government does not always win. The committee may side with the foreign news organisation and decide that there should be no case for gazetting. When I talk about credibility problem, there is precisely the possibility that the Government does not always win that perhaps may give itself the credibility, but otherwise the perception is that just because the Government is involved with a particular foreign media, the foreign media has got no chance, it would always lose because the final arbiter is the Minister whose decision is final, and he does not have to give any reasons for his decision.

The other point I want to raise is that for a journalist, it is sometimes very difficult, even for those who are not ideologically partisan, to differentiate what is fact and opinion in times like this, and we cannot always assume, with the new type of medium, that the existing practice and operation of the media that exist in the print media in a newspaper like the Straits Times also exist in the other types of media. They are fast, they are easily accessible, people can write stories now and get published in the very next minute. There is a clear possibility of honest mistake to be made. This is where a certain sense of balance got to be exercised. It is good if the Minister is advised by a committee so that such a balance and fair play can be seen to be exercised by the Minister and the Government.