SINGAPORE BROADCASTING AUTHORITY (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 6.20 pm

The Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (Mr David T. E. Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, a short while ago, at the Second Reading of the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill, I explained the changes to the shareholding provisions of the NPPA to align them with the Banking Act. I stated that corresponding changes would be made to the Singapore Broadcasting Authority Act (SBA Act) as its ownership provisions mirror those in the NPPA. This Bill introduces those changes to the shareholding controls in the SBA Act.

Based on the principle of safeguarding against undue influence, the Bill also proposes amendments to extend the provisions on broadcasting companies to their holding companies and make other updates to the Act. As I have already spoken in some detail on the changes to the shareholding controls in the NPPA, which are paralleled in this Bill, I propose to now concentrate on the other changes to the SBA Act.

Sir, allow me to first explain that our regulatory regime for media companies takes a differentiated approach. Stricter controls apply to broadcasting companies, because broadcast is a more emotive media than print. In the wrong hands, it can be easily used to manipulate audience's opinion and undermine our hard-earned social harmony and stability. It is with this in mind that we have put in place ownership and management controls for broadcasting companies. However, changes to corporate structures can circumvent this intent. Let me illustrate. In the media business, a holding company with several media subsidiaries is a common ownership structure nowadays, eg, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation is a holding company of subsidiary media companies like Fox News Channel and Fox Broadcasting Company. Such holding companies may, and in many instances do, have a large influence over the operation of their subsidiaries. However, the SBA Act currently does not apply to such holding companies. This is unlike the Banking Act where the shareholding provisions extend to designated financial holding companies. We therefore need to amend the SBA Act to ensure that no single person or foreign party can buy up majority stakes in a broadcasting holding company and unduly influence their broadcast subsidiaries. Clause 4 of the Bill therefore amends section 43 to extend the definition of a broadcasting company, to include its holding company. The shareholding and management provisions in Part X of the Act will thus also apply to broadcasting holding companies. For existing broadcasting companies, MITA's intention is to grant approval to their holding companies upon application, for the relevant provisions in the Act. Depending on the situation, the Minister may also exempt certain holding companies from the provisions.

Sir, I will now go through the other changes to the Act. Clause 3 amends section 20 to provide that no person shall provide a licensable broadcasting service in or from Singapore without a broadcast licence granted under section 20 or a class licence granted under section 21. This corrects the current legal loophole relating to the class licence scheme, where the continued operation of a licensable broadcasting service by a person or group after the application of his or its class licence has been suspended, is not addressed. The changes will not affect the light touch nature of the class licence scheme.

Clause 5 of the Bill amends section 44 to clarify that the full Board of Directors, Board Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, of a broadcasting company, are to be approved by the Singapore Broadcasting Authority. It also provides an updated definition of a "Chief Executive Officer".

Clause 8 of the Bill amends section 47 to clarify that the 49% foreign ownership limit for a broadcasting company applies to the aggregate of shareholdings by foreign sources.

Lastly, sections 46 and 73 of the Act are amended to broaden the definition of foreign source and to widen the exemption clause in the Act respectively. As these provisions are parallel to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act I shall not elaborate any further.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Andy Gan Lai Chiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the amendments to limit foreign ownership in the broadcasting industry and the powers empowered to the Minister. This will ensure that the local media, and in particular the broadcasting media, will not be used by foreign influences and provide necessary checks to avoid undesirable outcomes.

However, as in the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill, I would like to ask the Minister to urge the broadcasting companies to place more emphasis on the promotion of the arts. The recent Arts Festival has drawn to a close. It has been touted as the best festival in its history. But may I ask how many of these programmes, including both local and overseas productions, will reach the households in the heartlands? Some of these productions are extremely rare, and considered gems in the arts community. They are performed by leading and outstanding masters, directors, artistes, musicians, conductors and choreographers. We are indeed privileged to have them perform right here in Singapore, yet it is regrettable that not enough is being done to maximise their presence.

On a more regular basis, local professional arts companies, like Singapore Symphony Orchestra, Singapore Chinese Orchestra and Singapore Dance Theatre, have regular performances. These are considered national arts companies. It is unfortunate that their performances and hard work are not telecast in its entirety on television, the reason being broadcasting companies fear they will compromise profitability and viewership. We should ride on well-known personalities and excellent productions to enhance arts appreciation and arts viewership. I am sure that I have the support of the National Arts Council that the media bears a moral responsibility and obligation to promote arts in Singapore. We should encourage the media to increase the broadcast time made available for arts programme and telecast such productions live to households, if not at least a delayed telecast.

If we were to look at the programmes on local television channels, arts programmes are almost non-existent. In a week's television programme schedule, only about 5.5 hours of programmes broadcast on Central Channel are arts related programmes. This constitutes about 4.7% of the channel's total broadcast time in a week. If we look at all the local channels, including Channel NewsAsia, Suria, Channels 5 and 8, and Channels I and U, arts programmes make up less than 1%. We should cultivate our local media to broadcast selected arts programmes, especially local productions, bringing them to the heartlanders.

The recent exchange of letters in the media between MediaCorp Singapore and Singapore Press Holdings (MediaWorks) on the amount of subsidy each receives has drawn widespread concern on public service broadcasting.

Public service broadcasting is television meant to meet diverse needs and interests, including that of our minorities. The society gains as one. Increased broadcast time of arts programmes will act as a catalyst to boost the arts scene and enhance appreciation level. The arts is a sector justifiable as a public service broadcasting.

I would like to see revenue derived by the Singapore Broadcasting Authority be put to good use, as subsidies given to broadcasting companies are to encourage them in their efforts to boost our local arts scene. We need to re-position the arts and make it accessible to the heartlanders. I believe the media has an undeniable responsibility in helping Singapore realise that.

Mr Chandra Mohan Nair: Mr Speaker, Sir, this Act was passed in 1994 to regulate dealing in, operation of, and ownership in broadcasting services and broadcasting apparatus. Our Government should, as far as possible, let market forces decide on ownership of broadcasting companies. We should have a more liberal approach to ownership of broadcasting in Singapore and open up to internationalised broadcasting, in line with internationalisation of businesses, professions, cultural activities and sports. The need, therefore, to get approval to appoint the Chief Executive Officer, Chairman or Director from the Singapore Broadcasting Authority seems to go against normal market forces. And I wonder if there have been any negative appointments recently to introduce this strict rule in this proposed Bill.

The Broadcasting Authority may also wish to consider and be allowed to have more liberal ways of broadcasting programmes from abroad, especially ASEAN countries. We should broadcast more ASEAN countries' programmes on radio and television, so that we become more educated and enlightened about our neighbours. What do we know about Myanmar, Kampuchea or even Thailand? I will be the first one to admit that I know very little. Perhaps the Broadcasting Authority and the printing presses likewise have a national duty to educate our citizens and leaders.

The Internet and modern communication systems traversed by our people abroad would certainly allow them to have more access to broadcasts of these countries. Let us, as Singaporeans, take the initiative of promoting ASEAN broadcasts in Singapore. We could perhaps start with their channels involving culture, songs and sports. In this way, other ASEAN countries too would do likewise. It is important that locally, amongst our people and also in the international arena, we are seen to be more liberal, just like in our other walks of life, including trade, business, professional work, cultural works and sports.

Mr David Lim: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me deal with what Mr Chandra Mohan has raised on the question as to why we need to approve the appointments of Chairman, CEO and other directors of the Board for broadcasting companies. This has been the policy intent all along. There are provisions under the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) to ensure that we appoint people whom we feel would take on the responsibility of running the newspaper company. Likewise, we should do so for the broadcasting companies. There is no particular reason or trigger point, as Mr Mohan is suggesting, as to why we are doing the amendment at this point in time, except that it is a policy intent, and that we are making the amendments to the Act, and so we have put it in.

I have explained earlier the reasons for doing so when I spoke on the NPPA. I emphasised in my Second Reading speech that television broadcast, as a media, is especially potent in the way it arouses emotions. It is one thing to read about a fiery speech in a newspaper, but that only appeals to those with a certain intellect who can absorb the meaning of the words. But when you see this on television, whether or not you understand the words, you read the facial expressions, you read the body language, you see whether the person is animated or not, and you see how the crowd reacts. And all that can create an emotive response. For that reason, we want to be particularly careful about how broadcasting companies operate. And for this reason, we have put in this amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Andy Gan has appealed for the broadcast media to play a broader role in promoting the arts, and Mr Chandra Mohan has appealed for the promotion of greater understanding within ASEAN. Both are good suggestions, and it is commendable that we should want to try to do more in these areas. Again, I would leave it to the broadcast companies to consider these suggestions.

However, I would just say that while we can put on programmes on the arts or on ASEAN, at the end of the day, it is whether people watch these programmes. Broadcast companies are commercial entities. If we subsidise them with a lot of public funds, then we must be sure that the subsidies bring about a certain benefit. As it is, there are already questions about whether we should collect as much TV or radio licence fees as we do now, and we have explained why this is necessary, why this is important, and how this does benefit society through public service broadcasting on channels such as Suria or Arts Central. The fact that we can enjoy a certain degree of arts programming in Arts Central is because we have such public service broadcast funds. To do more means that we have got to raise more fees. And, again, I do not think that will be popular or acceptable at this point in time. But within the limits, I think we can take up the suggestions of both Mr Andy Gan and Mr Chandra Mohan. But we just need to bear in mind that it is one thing to produce a stage; it is quite another thing to produce the audience.

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 David T.E. Lim].

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