SINGAPORE BROADCASTING AUTHORITY (AMENDMENT) BILL

Debate resumed.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Sir, I wish to thank Members who have spoken in support of the Bill.

My general impression is that although there are some misgivings, by and large, all those who have spoken, including possibly Mr Jeyaretnam, agree that foreigners should not be allowed to interfere in our domestic politics. It is only a question of how we define what is interference, what are the instances in which we will act, whether we should have people to advise us, and so forth. But the basic concept is accepted, that our politics is for ourselves alone, it is for Singaporeans to decide, not for foreigners to come in to tell us what we should do in Singapore.

I will respond to the Members in the order in which they have spoken. Mr Chew Heng Ching supports the Bill, but is concerned about the possible negative impressions of our media scene, whether it will affect our image as a media hub. I would like to assure him that this is very unlikely. My own assessment is that this Bill will have very little consequence in practice because so long as the broadcasters stay to what they are doing so far, that means, be objective, report the news, by all means report on Singapore, but be objective, accurate, do not take sides, do not try to be "funny" in terms of our local politics, there should be no problem. In fact, my Ministry has gone to great lengths to brief the foreign correspondents and the broadcasters who will be affected. Most of them understand the intention of our action. What we are doing here is nothing new. We have, for example, studied what has been done in Canada and the UK. In those two cases, as Mr Simon Tay has pointed out, they are more narrow in scope. They are confined to the elections. In many other respects, they are the same. In fact, the laws are extra-territorial because they are trying to impose their laws on what is outside, ie, broadcasting outside. Here, we are trying to control foreign broadcasters who are carried in Singapore through our SCV.

The reason why we are not limiting this just to the election period is that you can easily build up a negative image or twist the facts and convey a negative impression and influence public opinion, even outside the election period. That is the reason why both the NPPA and this amendment on which it is modelled have the same intention. Basically, it is to lay the ground rules very clearly to all these foreigners that they are welcome to do business here. They are also welcome to report on us as observers, but they should not interfere, they should not have an agenda, because it is going to be quite difficult to judge, depending on the actual reporting, what it is that they are trying to do. But I believe if you follow the developments leading up to the NPPA, you will see that certain articles have a consistent pattern about them. They even went to the extent of refusing to publish the replies in toto. In one case - I think it was the Far Eastern Economic Review, they only published when we bought advertisements. In other cases, they only printed our reply after editing it and cutting out the essential portions. We will, of course, be very careful on how we implement this law. The officers, the SBA staff and our own Ministry officers, will monitor and be extremely careful to see whether this is fair comment, is it fair reporting, is it balanced, is it accurate or is there something that the broadcaster is really after.

Coming back to Mr Chew Heng Ching's point, I think the impact will be minimal. The broadcasters whom we have spoken to generally understand the intent of this Bill. They do not like it, but I think they understand it. So long as they do not stray outside what they are doing now, there should be no difficulty. The impact on our media hub would be minimal. Because of what we have been doing, Singapore has developed very well as a media hub, as Mr Chew has pointed out. Today, we are home to 15 satellite broadcasters and 84 production houses. The number of foreign publications circulating here, which include International Herald Tribune (IHT), Asian Wall Street Journal, Economist and so forth, has grown to 5,500. We also have 40 foreign channels on SCV, including 5 foreign news channels. I would like to assure Mr Chew and other Members that we remain committed to make Singapore a media hub, to welcome foreign media to operate here, both to report on us as well as on the world and the region.

We are, for example, offering generous tax incentives to encourage people to come here to package programmes, to uplift and to broadcast to the region. Many of the broadcasters who are operating here have told us that they are extremely happy here. It is good that we set our ground rules clearly so that there will be a minimum of conflict arising from misunderstandings. I hope the foreign media will take it in this light.

Mr Jeyaretnam asked a few questions. Basically, the point is: how do we define "interference in domestic politics"? As I mentioned in my speech, the High Court had in fact ruled in one case against the Asian Wall Street Journal, and they have said 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. That is what the High Court said. If there are cases which are in doubt as a result of the Minister's ruling, they can be taken to court and challenged. Asian Wall Street Journal did it and there was a ruling. The same thing applies to other cases. I also mentioned in my speech and gave three examples of cases which could be construed as interfering in our domestic politics.

I mentioned one case where, for example, the broadcaster refuses to give us the right of reply. I think that is basic. If they have done something wrong, that is, the report was twisted or inaccurate, and we demand a right of reply, they should give it to us. In fact, the damage has already been done because the wrong impression has been created. And some time thereafter, on the same programme our reply or, in the case of the print media, a small column somewhere they printed a correction or our reply. This is one instance that the right of reply is important.

The second example I gave is where, in fact, money changed hands. There was one recent example where somebody was paid to appear in a programme. I think where there are paid programmes or where somebody tries to buy political advertising, that is very clear. It is clearly interfering in our domestic politics. As explained in my speech, we will have to look at the actual circumstances and decide on a case-by-case basis. It is not possible to define in black and white and say this is it. We will have to look at the whole series of events, the situation, how it is presented. And then we will have to be very careful before we take any action.

Both Mr Simon Tay and Dr Lee were concerned about revoking without giving reasons. This is the way it has been drafted by the AG's Chambers. I think the key point is that it gives us the position of strength. In other words, it is something that we decide and it is final. In actual fact, we always explain what we do. Firstly, we are very careful in what we do. We do not just take arbitrary action. We talk to the press and tell them, "Look, what are you trying to do? Please desist from this line of reporting, or give us a right of reply." If they refuse and if there is a build-up, then we know that they are trying to be difficult.

In every case that has happened in the past where a newspaper was gazetted, there was thorough explanation. Pages of our newspapers were taken up publishing in detail why we demanded a reply, where were the inaccuracies, where they corrected us. And it is our intention to continue that practice, and explain all our actions, because we have to justify ourselves to Singaporeans as well as to foreigners.

Mr Simon Tay made the point that this is different from the NPPA, because the SCV is like a tap, which could be turned on and off. This is not quite right, because we can actually limit the number of people who can receive the particular channel. So it is like the newspapers. In the case of newspapers, it was limited to so many copies per year. In the same way, we can punish the foreign broadcaster by limiting the number of people who can receive that particular channel.

The NMP may not be aware of this, but Malaysian TV is actually available on our SCV. There is no payment involved. In fact, all our HDB flats are receiving the Malaysian channels, because it is a carry-on of past practice when we switched from broadcasting over the air to doing it through cable. So the same rules will apply to Malaysian TV, even though it is not a dedicated news channel.

Another way we can punish an errant broadcaster is to move him up to a more expensive tier, for example. In an extreme case, we might just blank it out. That will be quite extreme. If we have to do that, we can do it. In fact, if all we want to do is to blank it out, we do not need this Bill. Because under section 41 of the Act, it gives us the power to proscribe broadcasters. But we want to be seen that we are not preventing the flow of information. The particular section 41 has certain requirements. It must be because of moral reasons, public order and so on. This is more specific. This is on the basis that broadcasters are here to do business. They want to have subscribers. They want to have advertisements. And so long as they play by our rules and do not interfere in our politics, everybody is happy. But if they consistently try to damage our institutions and cast a slur on our courts, for example, then we have to take action.

Several Members asked whether we should have a committee to advise us on this matter. I do not think it is necessary, because the civil servants who are administering this Act are extremely careful. The people in the Ministry with whom I work with are most conscious of their mission, which is to promote Singapore as a media hub, and they will be very reluctant to take any action unless it is very clear that something has been transgressed.

Sir, I have answered most of the points.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask the Minister by way of clarification, if you will permit me, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On this right to reply the Government is so concerned about, does the Government consider that the only right to reply should be in the paper which published the offending article or the broadcasting media which broadcast the offending article or piece? Has the Government not got the full array of the Singapore press? Have you not got the full array of the Singapore TV and radio to give your reply? Is that not good enough?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: I think it is only fair and right that if a broadcaster makes a mistake, he should be prepared to present the opposing view and make a correction in the same media in which the mistake was made. I think it is a principle of natural justice surely. Why should we have to go and buy advertisements or use our own media? We are reaching a different audience. I think even if you talk to the media from the west, they will espouse our principle.

Mr Simon Tay: A clarification, Sir. Can I understand from the Minister that his policy in implementing this law would be, first, to seek a right of reply; second, to explain and justify; and, third, that he would tend to limit viewership, rather than a full black-out.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Yes. I think the right of reply is very important, but sometimes there may not be time. If it is during the election, we may reply but by then the election is over. So we have to take quite fast action. Otherwise, the intention is to study carefully, talk to the press or the offending party, check what they are doing, understand their real reason and have a reply, see whether there is a trend, and do the minimum necessary. We do not want to hurt ourselves in the process.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Lee Yock Suan].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.