PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Chng Hee Kok (East Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill. I just wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the penalties for offences of publishing information conducted through the new technological media.

Sir, with the advent of the world wide web, electronic mail and short message service on mobile phones, information can be disseminated at literally lightning speed. Unlike the traditional media, new technologies allow for mass circulation of information at the click of a mouse. Unlike the traditional media, a website may also be published by any other party's sympathiser or person in an unfriendly jurisdiction and is made available to all Singaporeans. The ease, convenience and cost of sending an e-mail to one person is no different from sending to one million persons. Worse, the e-mail may be just as easily propagated. The malicious e-mail may also be re-routed through another country or sent anonymously which, I understand, can be done.

How will this be controlled, Sir? The short is that information, whether true, false or malicious, may be most easily disseminated than at any time in human history. The damage of false information done through the modern media can be most devastating. The propagation of poison pen letters is as old as there are elections. In the traditional media, it is very difficult to mass mail a poison pen letter and get away with it. But in the new technological media, much harm can be done. In the recent election at one of the branches of the Singapore Airlines Staff Union, just for a branch election, there were a lot of poison pen letters being sent out blackening the various candidates who were standing for election. Poison pen letter is also one of the common features found in use in other countries.

Sir, one cannot appreciate the enormity of the problem of a poison pen letter unless he is a victim. Imagine the power of a poison pen e-mail done in the midst of a general election. By the time the truth is established, if it can be established at all, the harm is already done. In politics, although the allegations may be malicious and false, the mud sticks.

Hence, I am of the view that the penalties should be enhanced manifold when falsehoods are propagated by the new technological media. Penalties under the Bill for offences committed through the new technological media should be considered separately from the traditional media. In other words, penalties for offences committed through the use of modern technology should be higher than the traditional media.

Mr Sin Boon Ann: Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to join in the debate on this Bill on which I rise to support.

Sir, the introduction of this Bill has generated much interest and debate in the public forum, not least of which is the issue of political campaigning on the Internet. As you are aware, Sir, the Bill, in principle, broadens the scope of election advertising to include publications on the Internet. What the Bill tries to do is to regulate such form of publication by requiring to make known the names and addresses of the publisher and the person for whom or at whose direction the election advertising is published. It does not in any way seek to prevent anyone from publishing his political views or inclinations so long as it is in compliance with the prescriptions of the law.

It therefore surprises me, Sir, that the Opposition party should be so quick to jump at this new Bill to make wild allegations that the Bill is yet, to quote, "another sorry attempt by the PAP to prevent the Opposition from effectively reaching out to voters during elections". In making this comment, Sir, the Opposition has failed to see the real issue. We are not afraid of criticisms or comments, no matter what these comments may be. There is nothing in law at the moment to prevent one from harshly criticising, in the open, Government's policies. What we do require, however, is that the people who are willing to criticise must be prepared to come forward, to come out in the open, to stand by their statements. Nothing can be more cowardly than for one to take potshots at another and choose to remain anonymous for fear of shouldering the responsibilities that come with the public statement.

It is true that democracy protects and upholds the freedom of expression. However, democracy is also as much about responsibility as it is about right. Therefore, if somebody were to defame another person's name or someone who were to make seditious statements, he must take responsibility for his action. Why should anyone be less deserving of protection of the law simply because he is in the public limelight? What the Opposition is asking for is to give people the liberty to say whatever they want without taking responsibility for it. Sir, I do not find this acceptable neither do I think the rest of Singaporeans necessarily find this acceptable.

The Internet is a new frontier that we are still trying to grapple with. The latest edition of The Economist dated 11th-17th August 2001 recognises that the imposition of local rules may be better than the alternative of having no regulation at all. It further states that a complete lack of regulation gives a free hand to cheats and criminals. It generally recognises that the Internet, like all new frontiers, will be wild for a while and eventually the policemen and the law will come round to enforce law and order. The regulation of publications on the Internet is consistent with the policies that we have taken over the years with respect to printed documents. These policies apply equally to all, including the PAP. If the PAP has done such a lousy job in running this country, then no amount of regulation, whether on the Internet or otherwise, is going to prevent people from spreading their views to members of the public.

In looking at this Bill before us, Sir, let us take a proper perspective on the issue. This Bill is not so much about regulating the content as it is about prescribing the manner and form in which the content is disseminated to the public at large. Democracy is not only about individual rights but also about respect for the others. To suggest that the law should be removed to allow people complete liberty to say whatever they want without having to identify themselves with it, is to bring about anarchy and not the rule of law.

Sir, I therefore support this Bill and in particular the attempts of the Government to regulate election advertising on the Internet.

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, many who disagree with this Bill see there is an attempt to curb perhaps the only available and accessible avenue for anyone, big or small, who can have their say without fear or retribution. More often than not, the Internet provides the only level playing field as other channels sometimes tend to be more accessible and biased towards the bigger man. This is a special feature, a sacred quality of the Internet. The basic question, therefore, is whether the Internet should be regulated like in other news medium. Indeed, it is ironical that in new section 78A(1)(b), the Bill makes an exception for election news for newspapers, on TV and radio, but no exception is made for election news on standalone Internet site. Is the Internet then not a legitimate news medium? I hope the Minister would clarify this matter.

Sir, the Bill does not prohibit Internet advertising, as many have misunderstood, but it makes it mandatory for a person to register with the SBA to identify the name, publisher and printer of the advertisement. In my view, Sir, if the purpose of the advertisement is to promote a candidate, to inform its electorate about the good work he is doing, and it should be, I do not see why there should be a strong objection to identify the name of the publisher and printer as they would ultimately be the beneficiary of this advertisement. But if the purpose is to speak negatively about someone else, spread wild rumours and allegations, then I can see the objections in revealing such identities. If you look at past elections in and around the region, advertisements and publications issued are seldom about the good work of one person but more about the bad things others have done. So the question really is whether we should allow advertisements made anonymously. The Internet gives us the freedom to inform. But one can also agree that we need to inform truthfully and responsibly. If we have to legislate to prevent the irresponsible use of the Internet, then in the overall interest, Sir, it is worth it.

But like Prof. Chin who spoke earlier, I would have expected the Bill to be more specific in detailing the forms of advertising allowed under new section 78A(1)(b) because I suspect the interpretation of the details can be controversial and problematic. I would also like to ask the Minister whether he would think it more appropriate to have this responsibility delegated to the SBA, as the Minister himself may perhaps be seen as partisan when having to make such a regulation, especially during or before general elections.

So we have seen examples in the region how political candidates have to do battle on the Internet sites where the more juicy and damaging news were anonymously circulated when the real battle should be on the ground, in the constituencies and with the electorate. There is a real danger that others without vested interest in the election can dictate the political campaign during election. However, despite these provisions, we cannot regulate Internet sites posted outside Singapore. So although we have laws to take on errant publishers through libel and defamation law suits, the question is: is monetary compensation a sufficient remedy for someone who had lost the election because of rumour-mongering or false allegation?

On this basis, Sir, I would agree to the general provisions of this Bill. However, there are some specific issues which I am quite uncomfortable with. In particular, the Bill tries to force a distinction between public communication and private communication that simply does not apply in the Internet world. The Bill excludes individual to individual e-mail. But it says in clause 2(c) that Internet communication to any section of the public will be treated as publication. Like many others who have commented earlier, does this mean that if I have a mailing list with 100 friends, I can be prosecuted under the law if I e-mail my views on the election to my mailing list? Will I be penalised for having too many friends? So, Sir, how do we deal with such practical issues? How do we draw a line between those who set out to cause damage and mischief and others who do not have such intentions, although I would agree that the e-mail or Internet makes it possible the consequences of such action to be equally damaging?

It is for this reason, Sir, that I suggest perhaps the Minister describe an appeal procedure to be heard by the SBA before referring such matters for prosecution under the law. SBA, with its representatives from a good cross section of the population, can play a delicate balancing role in this matter. Only in this way, Sir, we can preserve the special feature of the Internet, while at the same time safeguarding against real abuses.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank all the 12 Members who have spoken on the Bill. The impression I got after listening carefully to the debate is that everyone supports the Bill in principle. In fact, I heard only a dissenting voice from Mr Chiam with regard to multiple nominations during elections and some comments on the opinion poll during elections. Apart from these comments, I think everybody supports the Bill in principle. The questions relate mainly to details about the regulations, what kind of positive list, how the law will apply in certain situations, how we differentiate between broadcast and individual communication, and so on. In fact, in drafting the Bill, the AG's Chambers has been very careful to try to be fair to everybody. It is a very complex subject and we will have to learn as we go along. Unfortunately, at this point in time, the detailed regulations are not ready yet. They will be ready before the elections. But we do have to get this Bill in place and debate on the principles of it.

As I have explained in my Second Reading speech, in fact this is a positive step, in terms of liberalising the use of Internet for political campaigning. As compared to 1997, the Singapore Broadcasting Authority had to ask some parties to remove posters on their websites. This is definitely a big step forward. The rules will apply equally to all parties. Everybody can use the Internet to reach out to their voters, and to explain their positions. The key point is that they have to do it responsibly. They should be responsible for their sites. They should not libel anybody. They should not spread falsehoods, and they should not hide behind other sites, for example, non-party political sites, some of which are clearly slanted in their viewpoints and are just masquerading as neutral sites.

The media, especially the foreign media, have been very fast to cry foul when DPM Lee Hsien Loong mentioned at the launch of the PAP website that we have to institute regulations to allow campaigning on the Internet. They assumed straightaway that we are going to clamp down, and all kinds of reports came out in the papers to criticise us and said that we were tightening controls. In fact, I do not know whether I am correct but I think even the Opposition Members here were caught by surprise that we are going to allow it. It is just a matter of how to do it. Of course, they have to oppose the Bill somehow. In the end, they did express some negative sentiments. But it is a fact that we are moving forward.

The Internet is a very difficult place. It is full of noise. If misinformation is spread, it can go round the world several times within a day. So it is very important that for something so important as our General Elections the public is not misled and the parties should be fully responsible for their viewpoints. They should come out with reasoned arguments and state their positions. There are a lot of issues on which they have strong views. It is up to them to convince the public openly through their web pages - these are my views, this is why Government is wrong, etc, - and the PAP will respond in kind.

In drafting this regulation, the main concern is really with the broadcast media through the Internet, the party sites which are clearly identified with the parties and also those sites which are political in nature, in terms of content, which are required by the SBA Class Licence Scheme to be registered with us. The intention is to make clear to everybody that these are the people behind the Net, behind this web page, and that they are in fact political in nature even though they claim to be neutral. Other than that, they have been coming up with all kinds of views criticising the Government, and we take it in the right spirit. There is freedom of speech, there is freedom of information. You can access information from anywhere around the world. You can put your views on the Internet. If you want to e-mail your friends, by all means. But how do we know that it is not a party member who is sending thousands of e-mails out and bypassing our rules. How do we contain the problem, in what is basically a very noisy, very difficult environment where information and misinformation can spread equally quickly?

At this point I will just read out to you some comments from an American who is living here, a gentleman called John B. Carpenter. This was published in the Washington Post on 18th July and is titled "Singapore internet story full of Western hypocrisy". This was in response to an article in the Washington Times by Mr Regan Morris of the Associated Press dated 16th July which was very quick off the mark after DPM Lee's speech on the launch of the PAP website. It reads:

"As an American living in Singapore, I found the July 16 article about Singapore highly stereotyped and an example of why many in Asia are cynical about appeals for "freedom of speech".

The report, from the Associated Press, states that the Singapore government has a "firm grip on the flow of information". I'm in Singapore, and I used the Internet to read this one-sided story. I also can access any Web site in the world critical of Singapore's government. In addition, the BBC World Service Radio airs here. The Singaporean government certainly cannot control what BBC broadcasts from London. The major American newsmagazines are sold here as well. They are required to be fair and allow the government a "right of reply" when it perceives they are unfair. This seems, however, to be asking for no more than journalistic integrity.

Sadly, it was integrity that this report lacked. No regulation has yet been introduced in Singapore, but the reporter sounds as if he is sure it will be draconian. Meanwhile, the US government has been busy trying to regulate Americans' freedom of speech during elections. Is it just that we're (mostly) white and Western that we believe we can be trusted with such regulations, while Asians cannot?" This is an article by John B. Carpenter in Singapore.

Most of the discussion today has been on the Internet campaigning. So I will deal with this item first. As I explained, the intention is to have a level playing field. We do need to have some kind of regulations. The intention is to come out with the positive list, through regulations, which will be available before the elections.

Some questions have been asked about the new laws. For example, this question was raised about the new section 78B(e) relating to publication of any news relating to election in newspapers or in a radio or television broadcast. I think Mr Zulkifli mentioned this. I would like to point out that the new section 78B deals with Polling Day. The intention is that, on that day itself, there should be a freeze on new advertising messages. This is in line with the current practice to allow the voters to reflect in a calm manner without disturbances on how they want to vote. On the other hand, we must allow the newspapers to report. So they will be reporting on the elections. And Mr Chiam claimed that the headlines are detrimental to the Opposition parties. I differ with that view. In fact, if I recall during our last elections in Cheng San, the report was full about Tan Liang Hong and his suits and counter suits, and so on. So how did they affect the election one way or the other? But the point is we do want to have silence and calm on Polling Day, and that is why we disallow new advertising messages on that day. Whatever is on the website already, it remains. But there should not be any changes. The newspapers and TV should be free to report the news.

This question of mass e-mail is troubling quite a few people. I will have to get my officers to study this carefully. The intention here is to go after the broadcasters, the websites reaching out to a lot of people. The intention is not to go after individuals in their own private e-mailing. But the point is: will somebody hide behind this system and have a chain mail system and bypass our rules? So this is something that we have to study more carefully.

A question was raised whether SMS, ie, the handphones that youngsters are very fond of using, will be covered. At the bottom of page 2, the Bill says:

"'Publish' means make available to the general public, or any section thereof, in whatever form and by whatever means, including broadcasting (by wireless telegraphy or otherwise) and transmitting on what is commonly known as the Internet."

So the word "wireless" could mean handphones. I think SMS will be covered.

But the point is if you are trying to send out, for example, your election poll results, firstly, you are not supposed to do it, but if you do it and you try and send it out by SMS to everybody, that will be violating the rules. But the intention is not to disallow a young man to SMS his girl friend and say, "Oh, I think this chap is speaking well or he looks very attractive" or maybe a female sending to her boy friend.

Mr Seng Han Thong mentioned the point about pictures being stills but that they can be made to be moving. The Act, which disallows political films, is valid and will apply. It does not disallow audio broadcasting. For example, if audio messages are sent on the Internet, they are not captured under the Films Act. On the other hand, if technology allows us to piece together pictures as if they are moving pictures, then we will have to study to see whether in fact it is a political film. The reason is that films are very emotive. You can have a few sound bytes and influence elections by saying a few catchy phrases and there is nobody to come and counter you. That is why the Government decided some years back to disallow political films and political videos so that section of the Act will apply.

A question was asked about foreign sites. The rules are intended to apply to all sites under the Class Licence Scheme. They are supposed to be responsible, should not do anything that instigates racial hatred, be against public interest, public morality and so on. All sites are bound by the Class Licence Scheme and, specifically, for political sites and sites which are obviously political in nature, they have to register with the SBA. That is why we corrected this situation where some of the sites like Think Centre and SINTERCOM were not registered. All we wanted is to get them to register and tell us who are behind the sites, the publishers and the people responsible. This way, we hope to put them on notice that they have to be responsible for their sites. The laws of the land will apply to cyberspace and, if they libel somebody, they can be sued.

There could be other questions on Internet campaigning but I cannot trace them here. If hon. Members would like to raise them, I will try and answer them.

I just want to answer the points raised by Mr Chiam about multiple candidature. It shows that he has an intention, before this Bill is passed, maybe to stand in Potong Pasir, and also in Jalan Besar GRC under the SDA. A kind of tikam-tikam, ie, "If I lose in a GRC, at least I still have Potong Pasir." I think he should be fair to the voters. If he wants to stand for an area and work for that area, he should just stand for that area. Why make use of this Victorian rule which is out of date?

I want to make the point that what we have done is, really, very limited in scope. We are not curtailing freedom of speech. People can email, write letters to the press and speak freely. But, for the purpose of the election, during the election period, and for political websites and non-party political websites, we must have some rules to make sure that campaigning is orderly and fair to everybody.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, the Minister has not answered one of my queries in my speech and that is whether articles in local newspapers are covered by clause 2, the definition of election advertising.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: I thank Mr Chiam for reminding me about his question. On listening to his speech, I was under the impression that he was asking whether this ban on opinion polls applies to the mass media. The answer is yes, it applies to all media, not just the Internet but also newspapers, TV and so on. Thank you for pointing this out. The answer is that the mass media is also covered.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I wish to clarify that whilst I do not state clearly whether I oppose the Bill, I wish to clarify that although I have no problem with multiple nominations, which I support, and also on opinion polls, I have no problem with that, I do not think the Bill on the whole has enhanced or helped our position in any way by using the Internet. I am opposing that part.

Sir, I have some clarifications for the Minister. I would like to know, first of all, for third party websites which are not under the Class Licence Scheme of SBA, if they publish during the election period, eg, a report on the election campaign or their opinion on a political rally, will that come under the Bill?

Secondly, can he tell us what specifically will be the regulation? For instance, he mentioned just now that we can have our candidates' profile and things like that. May I know whether a political party website would be allowed to publish speeches of the rallies and report on election campaigns, for instance?

Lastly, I would like to know whether the current regulations under the SBA are not sufficient enough to deal with whatever problems that may arise during an election. Why is there a need to have a different set of strict regulations, with very strict and wide definitions on election advertising, to restrict the use of Internet during elections? Is that not a restriction on the use of Internet by political parties? I do not understand how that actually enhances the usage.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I mentioned in my speech that for party political websites, the allowable features will include party posters and manifesto, candidate profiles, announcement of party events, party position on issues, moderated chats and discussion forums. This is not exclusive. There will be other elements which are still being drafted. The whole point is that this covers practically everything that they want to do. So as regards Mr Low's point about putting speeches on the Internet, why not? And even his own comments on rallies, again, why not? These are all covered. These are positions on issues. The point is that the party must be identified, eg, it is Workers' Party site and all these are Workers' Party's views. People can go and attend his rallies, they can read his speeches on the Internet. So this is definitely a step forward. This is allowing campaigning on the Internet, within certain regulations. What we want to do is to make sure that the parties and the people responsible know that they have to comply with the law, be careful that what they put up does not libel anybody or spread falsehoods. So I do not understand when Mr Low says it does not help.

Sir, I get the impression that the hon. Member is opposing this just for the sake of opposing. We are allowing and he is opposing. Shall we just not allow? The other point is ---

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, shall we allow and without strict regulation on that?

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Low, can you allow the Minister to finish?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: I think the Member will be aware that Internet is a very dangerous place. We can have all kinds of poison letters and they will just spread like wild fire. So we must have some means to try and minimise this and make sure that everything is orderly and fair.

On the other point about third-party sites, I mentioned just now that third-party sites also have to comply with the Internet code of practice. We require specifically political sites and sites which are obviously political in nature and active political sites to be registered with the SBA. Otherwise, all the sites and web pages are covered under the Class Licence Scheme. And if they violate the rules with regard to, for example, information that could cause racial riots or is pornography, they could be fined or SBA can ask them to take down the websites.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Clarification, Sir. I wish to clarify that whilst I do not have problem with the amendment on Multiple Nomination and do not have much problem with the ban on opinion poll, I do not support the amendment to regulate the use of Internet during election. Sir, what I want to know is if a website which is not under the Class Licence Scheme posts something on the web during the election period and supports a political party, for instance, is it liable under the amendment?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Then we will have to see the actual situation. But, as I said, the intention is to go after the popular sites, the main sites of parties and non-party political sites. If it is an individual, eg, a young man posting up his own site and saying "These are my views", we are not going to go after those people. We are only after the main broadcast medium, and an email is in the nature of private mail. It just happens to be on the Internet. So our intention is not to go after those but, at the same time, it is perfectly feasible for a member to arrange to send all kinds of messages through mass mailing and defeat the regulations. That is why we will have to study carefully how we can regulate the situation.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I do not think the Minister is clear. What I want to know is, for instance, Talkingcock.com is not under the Class Licence Scheme. During the election period, eg, the website publishes some political speeches of opposition candidates or have certain comments on the election. Will the web master or whoever posts it there be liable under the Bill? That is what I want to know.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Well, we will have to study the law. But my impression is that they are liable. Of course, they are outside Singapore, and whether we can catch them is something else. But whoever targets Singaporeans, our laws will apply to them.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, clarification. In other words, the Minister is saying that any website within Singapore and can be prosecuted under Singapore law will be brought under this Bill. Is that correct? Not only political websites with a Class Licence but any website?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: The intention is to make the rules clear for the main parties involved in the contest, in other words, the party websites. These are the areas we are mainly after. But we are aware also that some of the so-called neutral sites, eg, Think Centre, they are obviously political in nature, their publications are slanted towards particular parties. So we also have to rope those in. Those will be our main targets. At the other end, there will be the individual websites which we are not concerned about. In between is a gray area. So it is a bit difficult for me to be very specific now. We will have to see what actually happens.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, in other words, anything can happen because the Minister does not know what will happen. Anything could happen during the election period to any website that publishes anything that relates to political campaigns. Is that so?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: The Government will be very reasonable and fair in whatever action it takes. And whatever action it takes has to be defended. If we are seen to be unreasonable, that might cost us votes.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: In other words, is the Minister saying that whether a website that is going to publish anything, any opinion, during the election period of any candidate or political party, there is a possibility that it can be liable under the Act, depending on the Government's reason or how reasonable the Government is? Is that so?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: The position will be clear when the regulations have been drafted. Right now we are debating it in the absence of actual wording of the regulations. The regulations will be fair, they are meant to maintain a level playing field, and we should wait for the regulations before we pass judgement. The intention is not to go after everybody. We think that the campaigning should be done by the party sites openly. Standing behind their platforms, their views, a lot of things can be done on the Internet. They can have chats, forums, speeches and their views. They can pick. They cannot have political films, because these are disallowed. Other than that, almost anything that you can think of is allowed. But if besides that, there are other sites actively campaigning for a particular party, then we would have to see what actions we should take on those sites.

Mr Low Thia Khiang rose ---

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Low, it appears to me that you are raising fresh points which you should have raised in your speech. If you are making clarifications, you have to seek clarifications on something which the Minister has said and not try to raise fresh points.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, Sir.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Sir, before he seeks clarification, can I just add to this point that Mr Lee Yock Suan was trying to explain? This Bill covers political parties and political sites as defined or registered by SBA as political sites. For example, the Think Centre has been gazetted as a political site and is therefore covered by this Bill. Anything else is not covered by this Bill. That is my understanding of it. Mr Low asked about Talkingcock.com. Today it is not registered as a political site, not that I know of. So it is not covered. But should it be involved in political discussions, should it be involved in the way that Think Centre has been involved, then we will consider including it as a political site. That is my understanding. I understand that there is also a new site called JamesGomez@yahoo or whatever it is. If it is based in Singapore, doing the same thing as he did in Think Centre, we may also consider gazetting that as a political site.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: May I seek a clarification? The Minister just now mentioned that it will be clearer if the regulations are ready. I would like to ask him whether it is fair, since the regulations are not ready, to present a Bill in Parliament and he wants us to pass something that is not clear.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: The other Members have no problem supporting the Bill, including Mr Chiam. I think the position is about 95% clear.

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.