MEDIA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF SINGAPORE BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 5.57 pm

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

Introduction

During the debate on my Ministry's budget in May this year, I announced that MITA would establish the Media Development Authority of Singapore or MDA to give focus to the development of the media industry. The MDA will be formed by merging the Singapore Broadcasting Authority (SBA), the Films and Publications Department (FPD) and the Singapore Film Commission (SFC) into a single statutory body.

The MDA Bill provides the legislative framework for the establishment of this new statutory board. Before I go into the Bill proper, let me first elaborate on the rationale for forming the MDA. Need to Form the MDA

The need to form the MDA is driven largely by the convergence of different media, and the emergence of a cluster of high potential growth and high value-added activities in the media industries.

Today, technology has blurred the lines between different types of media. Movies, for example, can be watched at cinemas, on television, and over the Internet. We get our news from the newspapers, radio and television, and also over SMS, MMS and the Internet. More changes are coming. Wireless broadband technologies, for example, promise to bring about greater convenience, more powerful communications capabilities and wider reach.

The emergence of new media channels has also spurred the development of new content. Contents are now created with not just one channel in mind, but with the intent of being used and shared across many different channels. Likewise, industry support capabilities, like production houses, are structured to support multiple forms of media. And new content development capabilities, like the use of animation and films, are also being established.

In its report, the Economic Review Committee (ERC) Sub-Committee on Service Industries projected that the creative cluster, of which media is a significant part, could contribute 6% to Singapore's GDP in 10 years, up from between 2.8% and 3.2% in 2000. Specifically, the media industry is targeted to double from 1.6% of GDP to 3.5% over the same period. It is therefore an important industry for Singapore, and one that has the potential to create many good jobs.

These developments have two main implications.

Firstly, a single authority is needed to respond to the needs of the cluster of media industries. A single authority would be able to develop strategies and devise schemes to facilitate the development of new innovative contents across all media, and to respond quickly to the rapidly changing technology and business environment.

Secondly, a single authority will be in a better position to develop and administer a practical and appropriate censorship regime that takes into account the different nature, impact and viewership of different media. It would be able to regulate media companies with more flexibility, greater consistency and operational effectiveness.

Roles of the MDA

The MDA will therefore have two primary functions - as a content regulator, and to develop the industry.

On content regulation, MITA's view is that media continues to play an important and significant role in nation building. One of the MDA's key objectives will therefore be to protect Singapore's core values and safeguard the interest of consumers. To do this, it will take over the licensing and regulatory functions of SBA and FPD, and administer the relevant Acts.

On industry development, the MDA will play a number of roles. Firstly, the MDA will promote the growth of the media industry, working closely with the Economic Development Board (EDB) and other agencies to attract investments to Singapore. It would use its domain knowledge to work with the industry and other Government agencies to build up the creative and technical capabilities we need. It will drive the Media 21 vision, which aims to develop Singapore into a vibrant global media city, specialising in the creation, development, distribution and trading of media content and copyrights.

Secondly, the MDA will play an important role in maintaining fair and efficient market conduct and effective competition in the media industries.

Media competition was introduced in June 2000 to give viewers and readers more media choices and higher quality content. This has resulted in innovative offerings from the media companies. However, given the relatively small size of the Singapore market, competition is likely to be limited to just a few players. Competition today is between two leading media companies, each dominant in one area of traditional media - television or newspapers. There is therefore a need to ensure that the competition between these players is not dysfunctional, and that public interests and social goals are not compromised.

The MDA will therefore be empowered to implement a competition code for the media industry. Such a code would lay out the ground rules for fair market conduct within the sector, provide a more transparent competition framework, and prevent the abuse of market powers by dominant media companies, to ensure that quality is maintained. Competition codes are already in place in countries, such as Britain and Australia, to ensure healthy competition.

SBA circulated a draft media competition code to the industry in April this year. The comments and feedback from the industry are currently being reviewed, and the code will be released by the first half of next year, after the MDA is formed.

Now, let me move on to the MDA Bill.

The MDA Bill

The MDA Bill provides for the establishment and constitution of the new statutory board and outlines its main functions, duties and powers. I would like to highlight some of the key aspects of this Bill.

Clauses 11 and 12 of Part III set out the functions, duties and powers of the Authority. The primary function of the MDA is to exercise licensing and regulatory functions in respect of media services in Singapore, including the establishment of guidelines and standards for media content, and any equipment or facility used to provide these services. In addition, the MDA will encourage, promote and facilitate the development of the media industries in Singapore.

As part of its functions, the MDA will also administer the following media-related legislation:

a) The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act;

b) The Undesirable Publications Act;

c) The Films Act;

d) The Broadcasting Act, which is the renamed Singapore Broadcasting Authority Act; and

e) The arts entertainment licensing aspect of the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act.

The legislative approach taken is to not make any substantive changes to these Acts that MDA will administer. This is because the various Acts have served our national objectives well. The focus of this Bill, therefore, is the merger of the various units to form the MDA. After the MDA is formed, MITA will review these Acts, and propose further amendments as necessary to deal with convergence and other issues that may arise.

However, Part IV of the MDA Bill addresses an immediate issue that needs to be dealt with, which is the competition framework for the media industry. Clauses 16 to 27 are provisions to allow the MDA to maintain fair and efficient market conduct and effective competition in the media industry, and also to prevent the misuse of monopoly or market power.

These provisions in the MDA Bill are essential to provide legislative powers for the statutory board to intervene in competition-related matters, and are necessary to safeguard against the potential abuse of market powers by dominant media companies. The MDA will be empowered to intervene in competition-related matters that have an impact on the industry, including mergers and consolidations that involve media companies, agreements that could unreasonably restrict competition and restrictions on access to essential resources. The provisions also include a maximum financial penalty of $1 million to deter anti-competitive behaviour, which is consistent with that prescribed in the Telecommunications Act.

The Bill also includes provisions relating to staff, financial matters, and transfer of assets, liabilities and employees, which are similar to the Acts of other statutory boards.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, the formation of the MDA will benefit the industry and the public. The MDA will provide a focus for the development of our media industry. As a single authority, it will enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of our regulatory regimes.

The formation of the MDA is timely, as it would be well positioned to respond to the recommendations of the Economic Review Committee as well as the Censorship Review Committee on matters pertaining to the media industry.

MITA is confident that the MDA, with its focus on the media industry, will be instrumental in developing Singapore into a vibrant global media city and contribute to the development of a creative economy.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill.

First, let me declare my interest. I am the Vice-Chairman of the NTUC Media Cooperative and Board Member of the Infocomm Development Authority. And as a result of my 21 years as a journalist, I have many media friends.

Madam, I have deep admiration for them who must meet deadlines every day and, following the liberalisation of the media since June 2000, every minute is deadline for many of them.

The Media Development Authority of Singapore Bill sets out the functions and powers of MDA. While MITA foresees that the formation of the MDA will contribute positively to Singapore's media sector and benefit the public, I wish to highlight three concerns of its impact on the media scene.

Madam, the first concern is on the standards of performance mentioned in clause 17 of the Bill. My questions are: who sets the standards? At which level? Are they the standards set by the media industry? Are they the standards set by MITA in the interest of the readers and viewers? Will there be different kinds of standards for different media? And how widely has it been consulted?

Madam, I ask this question because I have observed our media scene and understand the aspiration and frustration, the satisfaction and disappointment of the journalists, readers, listeners and viewers in the past decades.

In the 70s and 80s, we were discussing and debating what kind of media model was more suitable for Singapore. We talked about the American style of journalism, the UK model and the Japanese model. In the end, we developed our own brand of journalism, the Singapore Model. In short, the media is part of the virtuous cycle of good government and good society. That is the role PM Goh advocated at the Straits Times' 150th Anniversary, five years ago. Yes, Straits Times is now 157 years old and Lianhe Zaobao will be celebrating its 80th Anniversary next year. The media is part of the virtuous cycle. They have their long histories, performance standards, values and cultures. Thus, the kind of standards mentioned in the Bill must bear in mind the unwritten standards set in these media organisations which are already scrutinised by the readers and viewers every day, every hour.

Madam, my second concern is the code of practice mentioned in the same clause. The MDA Bill provides for the Authority to issue a Competition Code to regulate competition so that competition continues to stay relevant and constructive. I understand that MDA's objective is to maintain fair and effective competition, as mentioned by the Acting Minister just now, and provide for safeguards against dominant media companies abusing their market powers.

In my view, our principal interest is to ensure that competition does not lead to a decline in quality or depth. With competition, there must continue to be public service and a value system that serves the national interest and community. Thus, I would urge the Minister to introduce a code that regulates with a light touch rather than enforce close policing in such a way as to end up stifling competition, creativity and innovation. After all, the media here does not resort to sensationalism, or untruths, just to generate circulation.

Madam, my third concern is the power of MDA. It is so powerful that it seems that it is more of a regulator rather than a champion and promoter of the industry, as the word "development" in its name may imply. MDA will oversee the licensing and content management of broadcasts, films, publications and arts entertainment. MDA will also be tasked to administer the Broadcasting Act, the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, the Undesirable Publications Act, the Films Act, and the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act. It is so powerful that it is tantamount to be a mini-MITA. I can foresee that the Chairman and board members will have an extremely challenging role in shaping the development of the media scene in Singapore, especially in the age of new economy and the convergence of media.

Finally, as Prime Minister Goh said at the Straits Times' 150th Anniversary Celebrations:

"You can be proud because you have reported without being corrupt, adversarial or sycophantic."

I hope this remains the spirit of our media industry with the birth of the MDA.

I support the Bill.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mdm Deputy Speaker, many people in the arts circle and the media industry hope that the Government would not maintain the very strict stance on censorship and hope that the Government would lean more towards a less strict regulatory model in relation to the media and the arts. But it would appear from this Bill that it is not going to be so.

Typical of the authoritarian and paternalistic style of the PAP, it wants to continue with a strict censorship regime. In these modern times, with the proliferation of the computer and fast widespread communication with the Internet, I do not think that strict censorship can be effective. In fact, it is holding Singapore society back. Singapore wants to be a modern, urban society. The Government wants to make it a Renaissance City. The Government wants the city to be dynamic, vibrant and creative. But while promoting these enlightened aims, the Government still wants to maintain the nanny-state status of Singapore. How can the arts and the media progress, grow and compete with those of other countries, if the Government continues to treat its citizens like children?

It is true that while we all agree that pornography, unhealthy and destructive pronouncements in politics touching on issues of race, language or religion have to be curbed, and we also believe that our children have to be protected from harmful smut and pornography, this does not mean that there should be a blanket strict censorship. It is time the Government started to review its policy of strict censorship. The Government should consider, in the alternative, a model of regulatory devices, noting the conservative sensitive nature of certain groups of our population. For an enlightened regulatory model to be accepted by the majority of the people, it is best that the Government should not take into its own hands the duty of drawing up the regulations but, rather, get all sections and representatives of various interest groups to draw up the regulations. In this way, once the regulations are made and enforced, it cannot be said that they were the sole work of the Government, but rather they are made by the general consensus of the people and shall be more acceptable by the public. Whatever it is, I would like to urge the Government to stop treating Singapore as a nanny state, but to open up the society and give Singaporeans a chance to mature.

I should now like to comment on some of the provisions of the Bill. I note that the enforcement of the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA), after the MDA Bill is passed, shall no longer be under the purview of the Ministry of Home Affairs. I hope that MITA shall be more flexible than the MHA in interpreting the provisions of the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act, and allow me, as an Opposition MP, to make speeches at my Party dinners held in my own constituency. Can the Minister in charge of PEMA give me an assurance that, as an Opposition MP, I shall not be gagged in future but shall be allowed to make speeches at functions organised by my Party in my constituency?

I wish to refer to clause 5 concerning the membership of the Authority. Clause 5 cites that the Authority shall comprise "a Chairman and not less than five but not more than 16 other members, all of whom shall be appointed by the Minister". In other words, the Minister is given a completely free hand to choose whoever he wants to be in the Authority. I would imagine that it would be more rational if the Bill specifically states that the Minister must choose members of the Authority from certain professions or occupations. That would make the Authority more representative and more balanced. I think the Minister should include in the membership of the Authority representatives from the local arts circles, the universities, parents' associations and the different groups.

As regards the functions and duties of the Authority mentioned in clause 11 of the Bill, I would urge the Government to use a light hand rather than a heavy hand. The Government should have, as its aim, to eventually do away with censorship and make Singapore a truly Renaissance City, when Singapore shall bloom as a city renowned for its art and culture.

Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on the MDA Bill.

Madam, I can fully appreciate the rationale of the Media Development Authority of Singapore Bill, and believe that it is timely. In this era of mergers and acquisitions, the formation of MDA as a single authority to coordinate the regulation and development of the media industry across the different media platforms, such as printing media, cyberspace and the airwaves, is sensible and logical. I believe that the aim is to streamline the roles of the different agencies and to give more flexibility and greater consistency to the Authority.

As explained by the Minister, the MDA will also be taking over the roles of such organisations as the Films and Publications Department, the Singapore Broadcasting Authority and the Singapore Film Commission. All of these will come under the purview of MDA. As an integrated statutory board, it will oversee the licensing and content management of broadcast, films, publications and arts entertainment.

Be that as it may, Madam, it is noted that the Bill has not attempted to make any substantive changes to the relevant Acts which MDA is tasked to administer. I am questioning the wisdom of this move. The past 10 years have seen the world changed drastically, due to the rapid scientific and technological advancement in communications and the media industry. Internet technology, handphones, PDAs and other mobile solutions are just some of the things that are now part and parcel of our lives. Moving forward, we will see more developments and breakthroughs in the communications field and, as we speak, Madam, more people, even those from the Third World countries, are starting to use or are considering the usage of satellite communications and satellite television.

A few months ago, I had the opportunity to be part of the team to welcome some parliamentarians from Iran. In our discussions with them, they also highlighted the challenges that they are facing to balance their efforts to embrace new technologies like the Internet and satellite communications for all its benefits against the risks of exposure to undesirable contents that they want to protect their people from. They had wanted to hear from us and hoped to learn from our experiences. I thought it was quite flattering that they even considered us as a country to learn from. The point that I am highlighting is that even a country like Iran, which has a reputation, rightly or wrongly, as being conservative, is also toying with the idea of satellite communications and satellite television.

I am wondering, Madam, what is our present status now. Have we made any progress in this area? Are we preparing ourselves for these changes? Is the new Authority, MDA, equipped and ready to come out with new initiatives and strategies? I personally was pleasantly surprised when Prime Minister Goh, in his National Day Rally speech, mentioned about bar-top dancing. I am happy not because of the bar-top dancing but by the fact that the Prime Minister is aware of the situation on the ground - the diverse views, the different lifestyles, requests and demands of Singaporeans.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I believe we have arrived at the juncture of our country's development and growth where we are expected to deliver something different. Do things differently and do not always stick to the old formula that has served us well. Let us strive to make our people more resilient and strong. I believe that we cannot afford to continuously shield and protect them from undesirable contents. Should we not start to let them learn to fend for themselves and learn to develop life skills and personal responsibilities towards their families and themselves? Similarly, we should continue to emphasise on the education and soft aspects of our development that will make our society and country even stronger in the face of more daunting challenges far more difficult than the undesirable contents that we are shielding them from. To top it all, it is becoming more difficult and almost impossible to effectively perform this protector role, due to rapid technological advancements as well as the fact that Singaporeans travel extensively.

Madam, I am glad that MITA sees the formation of MDA as a body that will contribute positively to the local media industry. The area that I hope that would be given some attention and assistance would be the film industry. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the local film and movie industry was thriving, and we produced many classic movies and we were considered as one of the main sources of quality productions. But, now, gone are the glory days of Jalan Ampas, Cathay Film Production and Shaw Film Production. But the recent development of the local film industry with the emergence of talented Singaporeans, such as Jack Neo, Eric Khoo and the likes, are making waves with their films like "Money No Enough", "I Not Stupid", "12 Storeys", and "Mee Pok Man". And it is very encouraging. It is my hope, Madam, that MDA will take a more active role to promote this industry. We can see that we do have talents in our midst. Furthermore, Singapore and the region are not short of resources to come up with respectable quality products and maybe, one day, we will see a Singaporean winner at the Cannes Film Festival and even at other competitions.

In this respect, I believe that the new Authority and its relevant agencies must begin to take inputs from the industry players as their experience in the industry is worth more than any advice from academic experts. Similarly, MDA should not be seen as always giving bureaucratic directions but, rather, it must be a partner of the stakeholders - the industry players, artistes, actors, directors and many more.

Madam, we have made lots of progress and strides to promote the local media, entertainment and the arts scene. I have to commend MITA in their efforts. Looking forward, it may be worthwhile for MITA to continuously review and upgrade its policies and programmes to remain relevant. I have to admit that it is not an easy task. But it will certainly make the overall effort more meaningful and it will help strengthen the local film industry in particular and the entertainment industry in general.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Madam, this Bill marks a significant change for the media industry. The Bill will create a super multimedia regulator authorised to, among other things, develop codes of practice relating to content or technical standards for media services, or relating to standards of fair market conduct in any media industry, and also to monitor compliance with such codes. More significantly, the Bill also provides for the Authority to issue a Competition Code to regulate competition.

Madam, I want to point out that this Bill comes about two years after limited competition was introduced in the media sector. Since then, the two media giants in Singapore - Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) and MediaCorp - have forayed into each other's turf. In the earlier phase, the media industry saw a flurry of rapid changes. MediaCorp started publishing a daily newspaper called Today in June 2000, while MediaWorks, SPH's new broadcast arm, was licensed to run two free-to-air TV channels - Channel I and Channel U. SPH also started publishing the tabloids Streats and Project Eyeball, the first integrated print and cyberspace news publication in Singapore.

In the beginning, executives of Today at MediaCorp, its major owner, have painted a painful start for Today over distribution and other matters that were once monopolised by SPH, while the executives at SPH MediaWorks also reported obstacles in a field once dominated by MediaCorp.

The competition situation has now more or less stabilised. Since the economic downturn however, there have been even more changes in terms of consolidation. Consolidation has been a key feature of the media landscape. For example, SPH has suspended Project Eyeball and MediaCorp has shut down its City TV and consolidated its sports and Chinese programmes with some of its other TV channels. The media landscape is a challenging one right now for the media players. Against this backdrop, I would like to highlight two concerns.

First, it is not clear if the MDA's role is to promote a level playing field for competition or to manage the competition in such a way as to make sure that MediaCorp and SPH do not knock each other out. It is quite different. Reading the comments of Singapore leaders in the past, it would seem to be the latter. For instance, DPM Lee Hsien Loong has once said that the Government wanted to promote constructive competition and it would be a managed process so that one does not knock out the other. But does it mean that to be fair, you have to be unfair? In the sense that, does it mean that if Today proves to be so successful, the Government has to step in to make sure that it does not become the dominant print media? Does it mean that if SPH becomes so successful with its two TV channels, that there will be some constraints to make sure that it will not take over and become the dominant broadcasting media?

The Government has also expressed another concern that with competition, the media may go for scandals and sensations, instead of serious news and compete on the way down, which is happening in many other countries.

I would like to ask the Minister: will managing the competition also mean controlling the kind of news that the media can report? And, if so, how will this be decided, given that the MDA has made clear that one of its roles is to issue a Competition Code to regulate competition? Will there be a transparent public interest test?

Madam, if the code is to manage the competition, as I suspect it is, it is important that the media industry be consulted widely in drawing up the code and that there will be transparency in both how it is drawn up as well as how it will be enforced.

Second, I want to ask the Minister how this Competition Code sits with the coming generic Competition Act which is said to be ready in 2-3 years' time which, incidentally, strikes me as being rather slow. One would have thought that it would be the other way round, to introduce an over-arching framework, an omnibus Competition Act, which will underpin competition in all industries and enable more focused and detailed industry-specific measures.

I believe that this is the approach that Australia is taking. It also has a super media regulator responsible for the converging media and telecoms market, but it does not have a separate set of media competition rules. Australia has a generic competition law enforced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which applies to all industries. In the United Kingdom, they are also moving towards a single regulator of converging multi-media industries, the Office of Communications. It will have strong anti-competitive powers as in the Competition law that they have. In the United Kingdom, they already have an omnibus Competition law to provide an over-arching framework.

In Singapore, the Government seems to be favouring a sectoral-based competition code and has come up much faster with this than with the bigger Competition Act which we are all waiting for. For instance, the IDA has already come up with the Competition Code for the telecoms and this has been effective since 2000. This poses the question of whether we have a coherent framework. Should a media company, for instance, file a complaint to the MDA or should it file with the Competition Commission, once it is formed, to enforce the Competition Act? Who is to decide whether a dispute is more appropriately tackled under the Competition Act, which is coming, or under the MDA's Competition Code?

I am not arguing that we do not need sectoral regulation now. At this stage in our development, we are working to achieve a transition from a monopoly situation to a competitive marketplace. This and the particular features of the media and the telecoms are what distinguish sectoral regulators from the Competition Commission. In the absence of a Competition Act, there is a need for a competition code for specific industries such as the media. Sectoral rules provide a quick, effective way of solving disputes and to promote competition and to protect consumers. However, as competition develops and regulatory intervention fades into the background, we should do away with the Code to allow greater use of the Competition Act. It is important that we operate both the sectoral Competition Codes, the competition code for the media and the coming generic and omnibus Competition Act within a coherent framework. The MDA's aim should be to be able to lighten sectoral regulation as competition increases, thus increasingly rely more and more on the coming generic competition law.

I propose that the Competition Code should include provisions for regular reviews as well as prohibition on using sectoral powers if there is already effective competition. The Government should allow regulation of the media to move towards self-regulation.

To conclude, there is a need for sectoral regulation but my hope is that the more successful we are in using it, the more competition will grow and so the less need to rely on it. The challenge for the MDA is to develop an overall approach and a coherent framework in enabling greater competition in a rapidly changing environment while preserving social and cultural benefits associated with the existing policies.

Madam, I support the Bill.

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed: Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for allowing me to speak on this Bill.

Mr Chiam here is a very good friend of mine. But I am amazed actually at the way he describes our media. I know we are all getting on in age, Mr Chiam included. Maybe we will soon be like grandfathers. But I cannot understand how he describes our media or Government's handling of the media is like a "nanny". Having been with the media business for more than 20 years as the editor of the Straits Times Group, I find that, in fact, the media has been maturing, and maturing very well indeed. I remember the early days when I was editor, I did feel that the media here was rather parochial and sensational and I did not want to have any part of it earlier on. But after having spent sometime, 3-5 years, I then realise how important the role of the media was and felt that in fact, it was important that we could be part of that development of the media. If you look at the media today, you will find that they are undergoing a maturing process, with the kind of different opinions and debates that are going on. I think it is helping us to move towards a maturing Singapore society.

I see this move, Mdm Deputy Speaker, as an effort on the part of the Government to allow an authority and at arms-length to do the kind of work which the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts has been doing. To me, that is progress. When Mr Chiam and Mr Seng Han Thong talked about a "light touch", I wonder what do they mean by "light touch" as against a "heavy touch", I suppose. But I think here, perhaps what is needed is a judicious touch because "light touch" can also be too light and then we can also create problems for ourselves. But neither do I call for a "heavy touch" like in the early years. Nevertheless, like my friend, Mr Seng Han Thong, we all realise how difficult is the job done by the media people, day in day out, chasing deadlines and having to make decisions every moment of the day of their working day. Our hearts are with them and we hope they will continue to do the good work.

The final point I would like to make, Mdm Deputy Speaker, is the test of this Bill or the Media Development Authority on the question of the choice of members which the Government or MITA will appoint to this Authority. I think the whole credibility of this Media Development Authority will depend on the kind of people that we elect to the Authority. I would like to ask the Minister to elaborate on what is the criterion for the selection of members of this Authority. I do hope that the Minister or the relevant authorities that will appoint the members will choose people who are critical-minded, open-minded Singaporeans, that will allow Singapore to move further ahead towards a mature media and a mature society.

I support the Bill.

Mr David Lim: Mdm Deputy Speaker, first of all, may I thank all the speakers who have spoken, especially those who have spoken in support of the Bill.

Let me, first of all, reiterate what I said in my speech, that is, the main function of this Bill is to bring together different agencies and Government bodies that currently administer different parts of the media industry into one statutory body. The purpose of doing this is really to give focus to the media industry. Nothing else has really changed. I think to look ahead and perhaps to speculate that this means that it is a tightening of censorship, for example, is just pure speculation.

Indeed, on this issue of censorship and control, this is an issue that cannot be avoided. No country is devoid of controls or censorship rules over their media. If you take a country, perhaps a country as liberal as the United States, you will find that they too have controls over the media. No foreign entity can buy more than 20% of a broadcast company in the United States. And in the United Kingdom, where the regime is more liberal, even the transfer of ownership in the large newspaper companies will require the approval of the Minister. Every country will have to approach this in its own way, sensitive to its own context and to address its own concerns.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, indeed when my staff attended a conference recently in Europe which had to do with one aspect of the media, ie, about film classification, they came back and told me that the Europeans were not able to agree on a single film classification standard for Europe. That is because each country had its own concerns about what was important, in terms of classification, standards and cultural norms that were appropriate for that particular country. So censorship is an issue that all countries have got to grapple with. And for Singapore, we have got to find our own standards.

I appreciate Mr Zainul Abidin's intervention on this point that Mr Chiam raised that we should not keep saying that this is a "nanny" state and the Government tells the media what to do. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I did not ask Mr Chiam what he was going to say this afternoon when he indicated he wanted to speak on the Bill. Neither do I want to know. I was quite happy for him to raise whatever points he would raise. Likewise, I do not ask the editors of our newspapers on what they are going to write in the headlines tomorrow. Neither do they ask my permission. Neither do I want them to do so. I really do not follow why we continue to prosecute such an image of Singapore.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, if I may address, in turn, the different concerns that have been raised by different speakers. Mr Seng Han Thong raised a number of issues about the standards of performance and asked what this meant. He referred to clause 17 on codes of practice. This is a clause under the competition section of the Bill. It deals with standards of performance with regard to competition. For example, if this was a broadcast company, you would expect that you need to have some standards of performance. You might need to regulate, for example, air time, the number of broadcast hours. You might need to ensure that there is no interference of signals between one broadcaster and another broadcaster. There are certain technical standards that need to be achieved. You need to ensure that service is provided and the system does not break down every other day. So there are these technical standards. As I said, there are also other social standards. But as Mr Seng has pointed out, our approach to the different media has been different in the past and will continue to be so as we move forward. For the print media, for example, I think our editors have done a very good job. They have managed to build up the reputation of our newspapers. They are seen to be credible. They are seen to be serious. They are seen to be a voice that deserves to be heard. And I think they understand their role in nation building and have taken this role seriously. I think that is a relationship that has worked well.

In the broadcast area, we have programming codes, and that, again, is because we have some peculiarities in broadcast, eg, dialect policy. From time to time, a broadcaster may break that rule and needs to be reminded about that particular policy, and that policy reflects the nature of our society and our other policies - our language policies.

To address Mr Seng's concern, let me say that these standards of performance are, firstly, technical. And, secondly, the other standards that may need to be introduced, I would leave it to the MDA to consider what other standards they need to introduce in order to ensure that competition is on an even playing field.

Mr Seng made the point that the Bill seems to suggest that the MDA will become more of a regulator than a developer. Just because there are more clauses to deal with competition does not mean that the Board likewise will be so. I do not think we should judge a book by its cover. There are many clauses here to deal with competition. Because, as I said, this is an immediate need, and this is not something that is covered in the other Acts that the MDA will also administer.

I can assure Mr Seng and the other Members who have spoken that the MDA indeed is formed to focus on the development of the media industry, and they are working very hard now to draw up plans on how to do this. One of the issues raised by Mr Zainudin, for example, was the film sector of the media industry, and I thank him for his support for the film sector. This is indeed an area that we would like to see develop. As the Prime Minister said in his National Day Rally - I think he meant it for Jack Neo - "Two No Enough", and he encouraged Jack to produce more movies that we can all enjoy and that can travel. And, indeed, Jack Neo's last hit "I Not Stupid" has done very well, not just in Singapore but it has also travelled, to some extent, in the region, and I think that augurs well. In fact, I received an e-mail recently of a Singapore club in the US which is gathering all the Singapore students and anybody else who is interested to watch "I Not Stupid". So, that is yet another way that it serves the function to hold together Singaporeans who are spread far and wide, away from Singapore. Yes, we will do what we can to develop the film industry. But we have got to recognise that it is not an easy industry to develop. We are a small marketplace and films that have local cache that can resonate with Singaporeans easily may not travel very far. So, the challenge for directors and movie makers is really to find a formula that will appeal both to Singaporeans but will also travel beyond Singapore. Because whether you show the film to 3 million people, 30 million people or 300 million people, it is still the same set of costs of making the film.

If I can address some of the specific issues that Mr Chiam raised on the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA), I should just let Mr Chiam know that the Act will not be administered in toto by MITA. MITA will only administer the art entertainment aspects of PEMA. So, if Mr Chiam decides to sing and dance, we can consider giving him a licence. But if he is going to make a speech, he will still need to go back to the Minister in charge.

On clause 5, Mr Chiam made a reference to the members of the Board and suggested certain criteria for picking these members of the Board, as did Mr Zainul Abidin. I would take their suggestions into consideration. Certainly, we want to pick people who are able to contribute towards the goals of the MDA and, certainly, their suggestions that they should be people who are critical, who are open minded, who can understand and see the vision of making Singapore into a vibrant global city for media and for the arts these are certainly the kinds of criteria we would apply and we want to try to get a broadbase of people, so that we will get different ideas to drive the Board forward.

I think I have addressed Mr Chiam's suggestion that we should do away entirely with censorship. I do not think it is practical and I do not think you can point to any country in the world that has succeeded in doing so.

Mr Zainudin also touched on the matter of satellite communications, and suggested that even Iran was considering doing this. I think there is a big difference between Iran and Singapore, and that difference is size. Satellite technology is something that is important and useful to large countries, because it means that you do not have to really lay a lot of cables. Laying cables in large countries is probably not cost effective. For Singapore, we have cabled up the whole country and, for all practical purposes, every residence in Singapore is able to receive cable signals. So, there is really not the same reason for us to use this technology.

Ms Irene Ng asked a rather philosophical question - the difference between promoting and managing competition. I think if you created a specific scenario whether we would hold back a company if it was too successful, if Today became the dominant newspaper company, would we be concerned? If MediaWorks became the dominant broadcasting company, would we be concerned? The answer is no. I think we leave the industry to compete. What we want to be sure of is really that the incumbent operator does not put impediments unfairly in the way of a competitor trying to get into the marketplace and trying to compete, and that is what the competition code is for.

Ms Ng also talked about the omnibus Competition Act that is being considered and why we have chosen to do sectoral competition codes at this point in time. I think the answer is that we cannot wait, once we have introduced competition into the media industry. Although over the last two years the more aggressive competitive behaviour has quietened down a little bit, I still receive complaints every now and then by one party against another party on anti-competitive behaviour. Really, the only way to deal with this properly and effectively is to have a competition code and that is why we are introducing one now.

As to whether it will be consistent with the omnibus Act in future, certainly we will have to make it compatible, and it will be reviewed at the appropriate time.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I think I have addressed the issues that have been raised by Members. Again, in conclusion, let me thank them for their support. Let me say that the purpose of bringing these different agencies together is to create focus in the media industry. We see this as a potential area of growth as we move forward. The media, together with applied arts like design, is an important industry, not just in itself but because of its spillover effects to the rest of the economy. I think one of the key elements of our economic strategy to move forward is really to tap into the creative and innovative capability of our people and of our resources here in Singapore, and the Media Development Authority is tasked to do that.

Assoc. Prof. Ngiam Tee Liang: Mdm, I would like to get clarification on the functions and duties of the proposed MDA. I can well understand that it is taking a balance between development and regulations. It is true, and I agree with Ms Irene Ng, that it is creating a super statutory regulator. But I do not think the concerns that we have about censorship are as ominous as some Members have put it. Because I am on one of the appeals committee of MITA and I can safely say that we hardly have any appeals. This is an indication that we have not put too heavy a touch on censorship that the organisations would like to come forward and make appeals for us to consider. I may be wrong here but something seems to be missing amongst the functions and duties, ie, as a very important regulator or developmental organisation on knowledge, what kind of functions would MDA see for itself to actively promote Singapore's ability to be discerning about what we see, hear and read, so as to minimise the need for so-called heavy types of censorship here. I would like to implore MDA, even though it is ---

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Dr Ngiam, can you just round up your clarification?

Assoc. Prof. Ngiam Tee Liang: I am coming to my question now. Would MDA see for itself that it also has a responsibility to make Singaporeans safe for ideas, ie, you give them informed choices, rather than make ideas safe for Singaporeans, ie, through the censorship route?

Mr David Lim: Dr Ngiam raises a very fundamental question about the development of our society. I think he wants a society to be more reflective, to be more mature, to be thinking, to understand that there are trade-offs whatever the issue is. He has developed these perspectives because he sits on some of our boards, and he is put in a position where he has to decide very difficult issues. On the one hand, somebody might come and say, "Why don't you allow this movie to be screened, because as mature adults, surely we can make up our own minds about the contents of this movie?" On the other hand, we have others coming to the appeals board saying, "No, you should not allow this to be screened. It lowers our moral character. This will do great damage to our society." And so, indeed, Singaporeans will have to be more discerning. But I think this is beyond the ability of one agency or one authority to do. I think this is a task for all of us in this House, in all Ministries, in the way we debate, in the way we discuss, in the way we formulate policies, to be more reflective, to consider the pros and cons and to come to our own conclusions.

Earlier this afternoon, Members heard suggestions about the Government making decisions on behalf of citizens. Well, we want to try and shift some of these decision-making risks that citizens have got to consider and to evaluate and to come to a conclusion for themselves. This is the process. It is not something that will happen overnight but, certainly, we can all do our part.

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam: Madam, I applaud what the Minister said earlier about not inhibiting the censorship but making it a little bit more transparent. As part of that process, while you bring in the right people to form this body, may I also suggest that sometimes that kind of overriding principles must come down to the officers on the ground, including MITA officers as well as editors of papers, etc. Because, sometimes the OB markers are not very clear and everyone tends to over-read the Government. Perhaps this can be taken into consideration.

Mr David Lim: Mdm Deputy Speaker, again, my answer is very similar to what I gave to Dr Ngiam. We are conducting a censorship review. This is not germane really to the Bill that is before the House, but if I may just briefly address that. We decided that we will go ahead with this Censorship Review Committee, and I think I want to give them time to consider inputs from the public. We have received many useful suggestions. Arts groups have put together their thoughts and written them down. They have put serious proposals to the Committee. The Committee will consider all of these.

We are moving forward in this area. But, as I have said in this House before, it is not whether we are going to become more liberal or more strict. I think the issue really is whether we can keep pace with developments. We cannot choose the world we live in. And if we want to grow and to progress, we have got to be connected to the rest of the world. But that also does not mean we have got to be like everybody else. No two countries are alike. No two societies are alike. Therefore, we should find our own formula. We should have our own voice. We should have our own distinctive identity. And we should not be too eager to copy the standards that other people have set for themselves, because no society is free of the consequences of these choices. Whatever choices we make, there will be positive outcomes and there will be problems that we will have to manage.

So, it is a process and, I think, on censorship, let us wait to see what the Review Committee has to say.

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.