J. B. Jeyaretnam
Singapore
“And even if he did not know, as the Court of Appeal said, he was wilfully blind to that fact. This cannot be a defence because you cannot prove knowledge on the part of the accused. But what the court can do is to look at all the circumstances of the case and then conclude that it is beyond reasonable doubt that he had that knowledge.”
“Sir, as I now understand it, the payment to Mr Olds was compensation or gratuity, and not salary for the year 2000. If it was gratuity or compensation, may I ask whether there was any term in the contract of employment with him for the payment of gratuity, how long was he employed for, and why did he leave?”
“Maybe there are other areas in which we can think of similar useful schemes so that those who are unable to upgrade themselves sufficiently can still have good employment. It is a complex problem. And I think all Ministries and economic agencies would have to think harder how to address this problem.”
“May I make it clear that I shall talk about the aspects of the case which should have been considered by the court. So, in that way, it might reflect on the court's decision. But I do want the Cabinet, when it comes to advising the President on the clemency petition that had been sent to him, to take these points into consideration.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with respect, I do not quite understand your restriction because, as I understand it, all court proceedings are now over. So there are no pending proceedings in court. The court is now functus officio. Mr Deputy Speaker: You did not listen to me carefully.”
“Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan asked the Minister for Manpower, given the current economic climate, will his Ministry consider encouraging local employers to give priority to employing Singaporeans who can perform equivalent jobs, including our healthy elderly, rather than to resort to engaging foreign employees too readily.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,058 lines we hold for J. B. Jeyaretnam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 82.
“That would show a complete lack of concern for their situation and particularly, as I said, of the workers who have contributed to economic progress. And, of course, in the good days, we had tributes paid to them for their contribution to Singapore's economic progress. The other imperative I wish to know, whether it is one of the Government's imperatives, is how does it plan to minimise the risk of further recessions down the road. How does the Government see this as possible? Is it by having a society where all our citizens are well-equipped, that means, having the necessary basic education to recognise the pitfalls in our society that contribute to any recession that may come our way? Or is the imperative a society where the majority is left out from making any contribution, and the contribution is left to foreign workers and foreign companies, and the decision-making on economic matters left to a small minority of our people? If we adopt the latter, then we are robbing ourselves of the talent in our community. We have got to make sure that we draw in all the talents that are available to us in Singapore, and not just rely on the talents of a few people and particularly just the foreigners. Of course, it goes without saying that if our citizens are to play this role in making their contribution to our economic welfare and progress, then they must be well informed - and this is openness - on all economic activities of the Government, and be allowed to comment and even criticise anything that the Government proposes to do. So the question is: is the Budget preparing us for such a society or are we going to continue in the same way as we have continued from one recession to another?”
“It is against this background that the Government has come to present its programme to the people. I say advisedly to the people, because let us not forget this is a programme of how the Government proposes to use our people's monies in planning for them through this difficult period and beyond. I was quite interested to see Mr Ngiam, the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Finance, writing in the economic newsletter from the Department of Economics of the University, say that the one constant in every administration is the political imperative behind every economic decision. He says politics drives economics. I was glad to see that admission from Mr Ngiam. But, of course, it is not new, without being disrespectful to him. That was stated by Aristotle many centuries ago when he said that politics was the master science. Sir, I am tempted to ask, and this does not appear in the Minister's Statement, what is this Government's political imperative in presenting the programme, not just for the period of the recession, the crisis, but beyond? Do the political imperatives include a concern for all our citizens, not just a particular section or sections, but for all our citizens and for their plight during the economic difficulties that they are facing? This is a political imperative because it is not just simply welfarism. It shows a concern for those who have contributed to Singapore's economy during the good days. Or is it the Government's political imperative that they have to get along as best as they can? We have got other matters to attend to, not that they are unimportant, to try and get the businesses moving and the economy revived, and we cannot be over-concerned with their plight.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, last year when we were debating the budget that was presented by the Minister, the recession was still not on us. We had not gone into recession and we did not know what scars it may leave in our society. Indeed, the Minister and a number of others were indulging in some wishful thinking that perhaps we would not be hit hard and we would be all right, although there were warnings from the outside that the recession would be worse than the 1985 recession. But now, a year down the road, we can see what the recession has done. The evidence is all around us. We have 28,300 workers thrown out of employment just in one year. We do not have the figures for January and February of this year. I do not know why they are not available. I rang up the Ministry of Manpower and they said, "We only produce them every quarter." These 28,300 workers have swelled the unemployed in Singapore to 82,400 as at 31st December 1998. Then we were also told sometime ago that there were 21,000 Singaporeans above the age of 55 who have no CPF savings at all to fall back on. Many of our workers have not just lost their employment, but almost all others have suffered wage cuts, and this is on top of the cuts in the CPF savings. And as the Minister said in his Budget Statement, it has badly affected those above 40 years of age. It is not just the workers, the businesses are down. We have been told of the drop in tourist arrivals and we know that several businesses have closed and bankruptcies are on the increase. So it is altogether a gloomy picture. As the Minister said, we do not know whether 1999 will be any better. He says it is still too uncertain to predict anything for 1999. As a result of all these, the revenue is down by $3.1 billion.”
“May I remind the Minister that it is not for him to ask me questions. We know that banishment or prohibition orders against several other people have all been revoked or taken back. Why is this man in particular? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, surely the circumstances must be different. Just because some orders have been revoked does not mean that we must do it for this man. WATER-WORKS IN JOHORE (Employment of Singaporeans and Malaysians) 7. Encik Harun A Ghani asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how many Singaporeans and Malaysians are employed at the six water-works in Johore and (b) whether the Singaporean and Malaysian workers are employed on the same salary scheme. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Tang Guan Seng) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Utilities Board has 355 employees at the six water installations in Johore. 331 are Malaysians. 23 are Singaporeans. One is a Malaysian permanent resident. The same salary scheme is applied to all employees, regardless of their nationality.”
“May I ask the Minister whether he was prosecuted for these riots and fights? Why was he not prosecuted? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: One wonders why Mr Jeyaretnam is spending so much time of the House espousing his cause. Is there some interest?”
“Would the Minister explain why another student, Mr Chan Kian Hui who was also sent out of Singapore, had that Order revoked after a month's time, when Mr Razak has been prevented from coming in all these years? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: If Mr Jeyaretnam files a question, I will give a reply. Mr Chiam See Tong: It was mentioned that Abdul Razak was arrested for agitating the conversion of Ngee Ann College to a full-fledged university. May I ask what is wrong with that? Does it affect the security of a country? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: As I have mentioned, it is not just about making a point for raising the status of the College, but what he did was he was involved in certain agitations which resulted in processions, demonstrations, fights and riots. And he is a foreigner too.”
“What is wrong with them in maintaining their protests by way of demonstrations, if it was necessary? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam is in this House, using our time to espouse the cause of a foreigner who, in 1966, participated in certain acts which were a destabilising factor in Singapore, and after that he also had in several ways made several unfriendly remarks. And indeed in 1986, he instigated and led a protest against Singapore over the then Israeli President Chaim Herzog's visit.”
“Would the Minister of State say whether a demand for greater academic freedom in the universities is considered by the Government to be a threat to the security of Singapore? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, it was not just a matter of debate about more freedom. As I have said in my answer, there were demonstrations, processions and fights. So it is a different thing altogether.”
“Would the Minister say why this Order was made against him? Was it not because he was part of a group asking for greater academic freedom in the universities in those days? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: As I have said in my answer, he has engaged in subversive activities. Abdul Razak was actively involved in the Nanyang University students' agitation for the restoration of the Nanyang University Students' Union and also in Ngee Ann College's agitation in 1966 for the college to be made a full-fledged university. This resulted in several processions, demonstrations and indeed a violent clash between students and the riot Police.”
“May I ask the Minister whether he really thinks that he has answered the question? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: The answer is obvious.”
“May I ask the Minister, following the Member's question, what is the threat that Mr Ho poses? Is it the same threat that the Worker's Party poses to the People's Action Party? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I have outlined the circumstances why the authorities want to question Mr Ho. There are three instances and they are all in the answer.”
“If Mr Ho has committed any offence, the answer is to prosecute him and ask for extradition of him from the United Kingdom to Singapore. I take it there is an extradition treaty. Why deny him a passport? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: That is exactly what we want to find out and have asked him to return. We are prepared to issue him a Document of Identity for him to return to Singapore, after which the authorities would question him to ascertain whether or not he has committed any offence and, if so, what offences he has committed. So, Mr Ho should come back and we can get to the bottom of it.”
“Would the Minister identify the provision of law under which a citizen of Singapore can be denied a passport? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I think Mr Jeyaretnam very well knows the answer. It is found in the Passports Act, read with the Passport Regulations (Regulation 5).”
“As you please, Sir. Question No. 5. MR HO JUAN THAI (Non-issue of passport) 5. Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the reasons for the reluctance of the Immigration authorities to issue Mr Ho Juan Thai a passport. The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc.”
“Would the Minister agree that satisfaction by the Prime Minister, albeit by the Prime Minister, is not the same as satisfaction of the public?”
“And to the Workers' Party. May I ask the Minister whether he will agree that greater transparency which the Government proclaims is the desired object or necessary for good government would have been achieved by a full Commission of Inquiry with the public hearing the whole evidence that is laid before the Commission and deciding for themselves?”
“May I tell the Minister that he should not be asking me questions. I am here to ask the questions. Would the Minister agree that Parliament is not a forum for an inquiry and that if the public had to be satisfied, a Commission of Inquiry would have been the proper forum?”
“I am grateful to the Hon. Minister for his suggestion but I think he should leave it to the Party and to me to make our own judgment. I have read the statement of the Prime Minister at this debate. May I ask - I do not know whether the Minister for Finance can answer this - why was the suggestion of the Senior Minister for a Commission of Inquiry not followed up?”
“The Minister says there was no single report. Are we to understand that there were a series of reports made to the Prime Minister or are we to understand that the purchases were simply discussed at informal meetings between him and the Prime Minister? Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: As I mentioned in my reply earlier, the reports were made to me by Mr Koh Beng Seng and there were several reports. The Prime Minister was informed accordingly. No evidence was found of any improprieties and that was quite evident from the debates which had taken place. May I suggest to the NCMP that he no longer waste this House's time in raising this issue which is for his political agenda.”
“If you think we should wrap up, I will sit down. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary says Singaporeans have great many opportunities for speaking up or disseminating information. He says opposition parties can hold public meetings. They do not have to rely on the Straits Times. What is the reality? There is an opposition leader who is being prosecuted because he tried to hold a public meeting. It ignores the realities in Singapore to say that Singaporeans are free to speak up and to disseminate information. We are still dependent on a free press to speak up for us, and that is not happening in Singapore. So long as the press remains under this iron grip of the Government, we are not going to get information. That is why it is important that we now take the step to see that our people get the information that they are entitled to, information of Government activities, the transparency that the Government keeps talking about, transparency in Government administration. That is simply not happening in Singapore because we do not have an independent press. Question put, and negatived. Motion accordingly negatived. ADJOURNMENT TO A LATER DAY Resolved, "That, at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to Friday, 26th February 1999." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. ADJOURNMENT MOTION”
“As you please, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. If you think we should wrap up, I will wrap up. But I want to try and reply to his remarks.”
“But I am trying to reply to his points now.”
“The Senior Parliamentary Secretary refers to the survey. I do not know whether I have seen this survey, but the question is: who was approached for this survey and to whom were the questions addressed? We have to know a lot more about it. But may I assure him that he has only got to go and speak to the average Singaporean to ask what he thinks of the press in Singapore to find out in what esteem they hold the Singapore press. I think he will find a great unanimity among the people in Singapore that the press in Singapore speaks only for the Government. I have had people sending me copies of letters that they have written to the Straits Times which they said these were never published. They send them to me. I have got quite a number of those letters.”
“Yes, if he wishes to, on this credibility that Singaporeans hold the press in high esteem.”
“Sorry, Senior Parliamentary Secretary. He says the credibility of Singapore papers is high among Singaporeans. I do not know how he comes to that conclusion. I have met several people who have told me that they do not read the Straits Times, that they do not read the local press and they are quite happy to depend on other broadcasts, the BBC, for example, for news. Encik Yatiman Yusof rose ---”
“All right. I realise, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that time is running on. May I just deal with the replies given by the Minister of State? Could I deal with that? Encik Yatiman Yusof: Senior Parliamentary Secretary.”
“Well, I am trying to reply. That is why I said no one has applied.”
“I think it was Lord Thompson, who controls the Thompson group of newspapers, who was asked, "Do you control what is published in your newspapers?" He said, "No, I don't. There is no need for me to exercise any control because of the editors and the men who run the papers. They know their duties and they will carry them out." I am grateful to Madam Chiang for her perhaps qualified support. But she mentioned that the motion was academic because no application had been received. I think it misses the point. I do not think any self-respecting person will want to apply to run a newspaper in Singapore after seeing what happened to the Singapore Herald, the Eastern Standard, the Eastern Sun and all the other papers that have now gone off the scene.”
“You may recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think you were in the House then when I was here, when one paper, I think it was the Business Times or was it another paper, carried a very strong editorial on the pronouncement by the late Minister for National Development, Mr Teh Cheang Wan, that opposition constituencies would be attended to last when it came to breakdowns of lifts or other emergency services. The editorial took a very strong line against it, but what happened? Within two hours or three hours, that issue was recalled and another issue was published. I brought this up in the House and I think it was the Senior Parliamentary Secretary who spoke on that and asked whether I was certain of what I was talking. Then I was fortunate enough to hand to him and to this House the earlier paper that had come out with a strong editorial. I do not know, and we will never know, whether that was because of a Government telephone call or a directive or whether it was a decision taken by those who ran the paper. There was another instance, of course, that will be familiar to Members, of the feature writer who wrote quite a mild article about the disaffection among the people with the PAP and the Government. I mentioned this in our earlier debate. Then what happened? She ceased to write for the Straits Times. She was no longer writing. We are not to know whether it was a Government decision or whether it was a decision imposed by those who have control of the Straits Times. As Prof. Tommy Koh observed in 1991, the press in Singapore has been under a cloud of fear, and that is how Government control is maintained. We do not need directives issued from the Government to the press every day.”
“The problem, I think, in Singapore, is the equation of the perspective of Singapore and the national interests and the goals for Singapore is equated to what the Government, the party in power, decides what perspective it should be, what the national interest should be, what the goals should be. This is, as I said, the antithesis of democracy. The balance of power should remain with the people and it is the people who should decide what the national interests are, what the goals are. In this task of the people, the duty of the people, the press has an important role to play, as their voice. Mr Zulkifli also mentioned, as I did, about the establishment of a council. We should think very seriously of moving away from Government regulation of the press to the public regulation of the press. As I said, this was voiced in 1974 that the Government had been thinking of a press council, but nothing has come of it. It is time we set up a press council in Singapore composed, as I said, not of people who see things the way that the PAP sees it or the Government sees it, but who see it independently for Singapore as to what is good for Singapore. May I come to reply to the points raised by the various speakers. The first speaker mentioned about Government control in Singapore being very minimal. The perception, as has been mentioned by the Member for Hougang, among Singaporeans is that the press speaks only for the Government and it is the Government's voice. Mr Deputy Speaker, this Government control exists not by perhaps Government issuing orders day by day to the editors and to the journalists in the papers in Singapore, but the self-restraint or censorship that is practised by the press themselves.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am most grateful for the views that have been expressed in this House this afternoon and particularly, I welcome the views that have been expressed by the two NMPs. But before I reply to some of these points, may I make it quite clear that I am not advocating or encouraging that control of our newspapers, the press, should be left in the hands of foreigners. I thought that was clear from what I said. It should be left in the hands of our people but not in the hands of the Government. The fallacy in Singapore is the impression that is sought to be created by the Government, that if you are a true Singaporean, if you are a loyal Singaporean, then you have got to be loyal to the government of the day. That is a complete fallacy. It is the duty of a citizen if he thinks that the Government is doing anything that is wrong, it is his bounden duty to oppose the Government, not to shout "Aye, aye, aye" to everything that the Government says. And in opposing the Government, he is not disloyal to Singapore. On the contrary, he is showing where his loyalty lies, with the people. So, let us make it quite clear that I am not advocating that the control of our papers should be placed in the hands of foreigners. I am not advocating that the press should be completely unregulated and should be free to publish seditious material or material that might jeopardise the harmony that exists between the various communities or the different religious communities in Singapore. But we have the laws of the land which take care of that. And any newspaper which falls foul of this law can be taken to task and prosecuted, and then, if necessary, if it continues, have its licence taken away.”
“That is why I cannot see any one in the present set-up being able to discharge this new role for the press in Singapore. It may be that we may have to bring from abroad editors who are committed to the value of a free press in a democratic society and who are prepared to speak up without fear and with honesty and truth. We may have to recruit journalists, reporters who still hold on to these values and who have not surrendered these values to the requirements of the Government or its preferences. It seems to me that this is a matter of pressing urgency if, as I said earlier, we are going into the 21st century with our heads held high. May I finally end with a prayer by a great Indian poet, Rabindranath Tagore: `Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high; Where knowledge is free; Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls; Where words come out from the depth of truth; Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection; Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit; Where the mind is led forward by Thee into ever widening thought and action; Into that heaven of freedom, my father, let my country awake.' May I say that is my prayer for Singapore, that our people may be led into that heaven of freedom where they can hold their heads high and where they can make judgments for the country themselves. And that is not possible, Mr Deputy Speaker, when we have a press which is manacled by the Government and is not able to perform its functions. I hope very much that whoever speaks on behalf of the Government will this evening tell us whether the Government is ready to break from this habit of 30 years or 40 years and to make a new beginning in Singapore.”
“But, of course, a Press Council will be of no value if it is manned by people who think alike with the PAP or the Government. The Council has to be independent who values the independence and freedom of the newspapers. May I make a plea in this House, to this Government, that it is time that we made a complete break with the way that we have been controlling our newspapers, and give our people their right, the unfettered, untrammelled right, to express their opinions, their viewpoints through a press which will be fearless and will speak up for the people. This is not possible at the moment with the set-up in Singapore as it is now and that is why I ask the Government to say in this House this evening that it will be ready or happy to consider an application by a newspaper company not controlled by foreigners, but Singaporeans, to publish another newspaper outside the Singapore Press Holdings and to assure whoever is prepared to do this that there will be no day-to-day control over them. That they would be at liberty, they would have the freedom to perform their duties and responsibilities as a press to act as the voice of the people, to uphold the freedom of the people, and to be the guardians of the liberty of the people. This cannot be performed by the Straits Times, particularly, or by any other paper in the stable of the Singapore Press Holdings. The reason is that those who work for these companies, for the Singapore Press Holdings, and who write for these newspapers have been dyed in the wool with the PAP's philosophy of the role of the newspapers, which is to act simply as the disseminator of Government's views and Government's viewpoints and to try and persuade the people to accept the Government's policies. That is not the role of the newspapers.”
“How long is this going to go on if Singapore is to become a democratic society? Is this the press, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that Singapore needs for the 21st century? Is this how we are going to educate our people? Is this how we are going to equip them for the problems of the country that lie ahead by depriving them of the right to know, of being informed honestly and truthfully what happens in Singapore? This, I can substantiate to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can tell you that several of my Party's statements, several of my letters that I send to the Straits Times never see the light of day. The Government makes much of its right to reply. It insists on this in foreign newspapers. But this same right of which the Government makes so much is denied to opposition parties or to the citizens by the press in Singapore. I am not rosy eyed about the press in the West. I am not unmindful of the excesses and the lengths that the press carry their freedom to. But may I say that these excesses, especially on this recent Clinton affair in the United States, the extent to which the press reported it, the extent to which the media carried the news, show the strength of democracy in the United States. It shows the resilience of the people. May I say that it is preferable, even with these excesses, to the press that we have in Singapore which is completely one-sided, and acts only as a mouthpiece for the Government, carrying out, - performing the task against which Mr Lee Kuan Yew was railing in 1950s and 1960s. In this 1974 Bill, there was some mention of the Government having thought about a Press Council. I do not know why they have not been able to set up a Press Council all these years.”
“All right. May I then move on to the comments made about the press today in Singapore and that, of course, was also reported in the Straits Times - I hope you are not going to ask me to substantiate it. These were the comments made by Mr Marshall who was once the Chief Minister and Ambassador for the Government in France for many years. And he was speaking at the Substation one evening. This was reported and this is what he had to say, "Today, Singapore's censorship is worse, broader and more strict than any time under the British imperial rule." There is this man, Mr Marshall, who was the Chief Minister of Singapore and who was an Ambassador of the Government, saying this publicly. He, of course, had very unkind words for the Straits Times, calling them "boot-lickers". But he asked this question: "where do we go to express our differences or views if we are not allowed to hold meetings or write to the press?" He was commenting on the refusal of the Straits Times to publish a letter that he had sent protesting against the death penalty and asking the President to commute all the death sentences to 20 year jail terms. Mr Francis Seow, in his latest book, "Media Enthralled", recalls a statement made by the roving Ambassador for Singapore, Professor Tommy Koh in 1991. Speaking at a forum, Professor Tommy Koh was reported to have said that journalists in Singapore must constantly work under a cloud of fear and, of course Members will recall that some months ago, I was talking about the fear that grips Singaporeans asking for steps to be taken to rid them of the fear. That is the position in Singapore today. The press has ceased to play its role. The press has become nothing but an organ or propaganda for the Government and a mouthpiece for Government's views.”
“All right, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. But as I said, this appeared in public. It was read by Singaporeans and there has been no rebuttal of it.”
“Well, perhaps one could ask Mr Leslie Fong and the Chief Sub-Editor. He gives the name, Roger Yew. These names are mentioned. This has not been rebutted. There has been no reply from Leslie Fong or anyone else.”
“Well, I am saying that it appeared on the Internet.”
“Whatever freedom it had, and it had very little before 1974, was taken away and it became a castrated press. May I just read to you what was given to me, and it appeared on the Internet at the beginning of this year, I am told, and this illustrates the control that is exercised over publication of any news in the Straits Times. This man was, he says, a junior sub-editor in the Straits Times, and he speaks of an evening when he was with his Chief Sub-editor when Mr Leslie Fong, who has admitted that he was an ardent admirer of the PAP from his school days, came into the room where they were working, trying to put the paper to bed, getting everything ready, to tell them that he had had a call from upstairs. Everyone understood what "upstairs" meant. The Straits Times was not to overplay or underplay the visit of a China delegation that was visiting Singapore or was about to visit Singapore.”
“No company shall refuse to issue or accept transfer of management shares where the Minister has granted an approval. And the holder of management shares wielded great power. These were the people who were approved by the Minister. The holder of management shares, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure Members are aware of this but I need to emphasise it again, was given 200 votes for each management share held by him or her in any resolution relating to the appointment or dismissal of a director or any member of the staff of a newspaper company. That, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, sealed the question as to who was to have the major say or the only say in the appointment of the editor, the appointment of even journalists and reporters in any newspaper. It was the holders of the management shares and their share counted for 200 votes against the ordinary shareholders. Whilst the Act did not make any mention about the limit of shares that may be held by management shareholders, it limited ordinary shareholders to no more than 3% of the ordinary shares. So through these amendments that were made, the press passed into the control of the Government legally, de jure, when previously control was effected de facto. So what is the result today as a result of the amendments made in 1974 and the actions taken under that? We have the Singapore Press Holdings controlling the entire newspaper industry in Singapore. It has been, I think, termed the largest press company in the world. Who is on the board of this? The Chairman is an ex-Cabinet Minister. The Executive Director was a one time Director of the Internal Security Department. The other members of the board are tried and trusted men of the Government. And so the press became a mouthpiece for the Government.”
“One Member talked about not allowing demons and devils to control the press in Singapore and so subvert Singaporeans. Another talked about even embassies and diplomatic organisations in Singapore subverting Singaporeans by taking out advertisements or airing their views through the local media. And of course, before the 1972 elections, the Opposition parties and, particularly, the Workers' Party was accused of being a proxy for foreign powers and it was also mentioned that the press might be taken over by proxy by foreign powers. But the irony of all this is that, in this House, whilst Members who spoke were all speaking about the necessity to put the control over the newspapers in the hands of Singapore citizens, they failed to see that what the Act did, and there was no question about this, was not to put the control into the hands of Singaporeans; it was to put the control of the newspapers in the hands of the Government, which are two different things. The then Minister for Culture spoke of putting the control of our newspapers in the hands of our citizens and that Singaporeans could not afford to have black operations mounted against us. But if one looks at the provisions in that Act, it is so clear that what that Act did was to put the dissemination of news completely and totally in the control of the Government. It introduced for the first time management shares as distinct from ordinary shares, creating two classes of shares, namely, management shares and ordinary shares. No management shares could be issued or transferred except to citizens of Singapore - one may not have quarrel with that, but this is where the sting is - or corporations who or which have been granted the written approval of the Minister.”
“We would appear to have reached, what the Senior Minister said in 1956, an intimidated press of which he was warning the Legislative Assembly and that position, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I say, with regret, has been reached systematically and deliberately by measures taken by his Government after it took power in 1959. At present, we have really one newspaper, or one company, one stable, which brings out broadsheets or tabloids but all reporting faithfully whatever the Government or the PAP wishes them to put forward. They have failed in their duty of being a voice for the people and they have become a voice for the Government and that has been made possible by the amendment that was passed in 1974 which legalised the de facto control of the press which was already in place before 1974. Members will recall that it was before 1974, the years preceding that, that the Eastern Sun was closed. It was accused of being anti-Singapore because there was some money received from abroad. Then there was the forced closure of the Singapore Herald for what the Government termed "black operations". No paper which was even mildly critical of the Government was allowed to operate. But this was all done, as I said, de facto, without the legal control over it. And so it was in 1974 that a new Bill was introduced in Parliament, the Newspaper and Printing Presses Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have taken the trouble to read the debate in the Parliament on the Second Reading of that Bill. I am not going to bore Members by reading what was said. But the reason given for the amendments, and I shall take the House through the amendments that were made, was that the control of the newspapers had to be put into the hands of Singapore citizens.”
“Is it a society where man can preach ideas - the novel, unorthodox, heresies, established churches and established governments where there is a constant contest for men's hearts and minds on the basis of what is right, of what is just, or what is in the national interest? Or is it a closed society where the mass media - the newspapers, journals, publications, TV, radio - either by sound or by sight, or both sound and sight, feed men's minds with a constant drone of sycophantic support for a particular orthodox philosophy?" So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the principles that the west was espousing were very dear to the heart of the Senior Minister when he was fighting for the same. May I then remind the Members that this is not just western heresy or western values that I am attempting to impose on Singapore. My commitment and my belief is that we in Singapore, if we are to become a democratic society, have to hold fast to the principles that the Senior Minister was espousing in the fifties and sixties. If they were found necessary then, they are all the more necessary today, as we now prepare to go into the 21st century, with its challenges facing us, with all the competitions that confront us when we go into the 21st century. So, it is not just western or liberal values but values that a number of Asian societies have accepted and which to my mind, and I am sure to people who think rightly, are essential for a democratic society. May I now look at the position in Singapore today.”
“Then no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at naught, and no excuse, whether security, inconvenience to the traffic, or inconvenience to police officers, should allow a government to be deterred from doing what it knows to be right, and what it must know to be right." Speaking in the same year in the Assembly in October, he said - this, Mr Deputy Speaker, has often been quoted, as the "making- love" speech: "I am told [repression] is like making love - it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course, with constant repetition, you get more and more brazen on the attack and in the scope of the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organisations and societies and banish or detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface." If I may just interpose, here comes the most operative part of this speech: "Then an intimidated Press and the Government controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done. Or if these things are referred to again, they are conveniently distorted, and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict." All these must seem very familiar to us in Singapore today. But that was in 1956 the now Senior Minister holding forth in the Legislative Assembly. And when we were part of Malaysia, what did he have to say? Speaking in the Malaysian Parliament in December 1964, he said: "Let us get down to fundamentals. Is this an open or a closed society?”
“" If Members think that this is all western heresy and it is not something for us to follow, may I tell them that these principles or values have been held fast in a number of Asian societies. I do not have to mention them all, but the most clear example would be India, the greatest and largest democracy in the world, as it has been termed very often. And I see only in yesterday's paper that when the Pakistani government is trying to close down a newspaper, there is a procession against the closure led by Miss Bhutto and a number of other political parties, and they are all united in defending the freedom of the press. And it is not only just these two, but there are the Philippines, even Thailand and Sri Lanka. But let us not just rely on what the other countries are doing. May I, even if it is tedious, again recall what the present Senior Minister said about the press when he was fighting for the freedom of the press way back in the fifties and sixties. Speaking in the then Legislative Assembly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Senior Minister - I regret that he is not here to listen to what he said then - had this to say: "...we either believe in democracy or we do not. If we do, then we must say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from any democratic process, other than by ordinary law of the land, should be allowed. If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication.”
“" These were all the values that were held at the time when the press in England were fighting to represent the people's views. And, again, in this "Dangerous Estate", talking about one of the great editors of the Times (Barnes was the editor), Williams has this to say "Barnes's influence was rooted in the conviction that a newspaper is "not an organ through which the Government could influence the people but an organ through which the people could influence the Government"." And in his concluding chapter, Francis Williams presents what the present role is, because times have changed. At one time it seemed as though the press was becoming tyrannical in England, it was trying to control policies. And so times have changed and the press have changed a little. But he said the basic role remains the same. And he concludes that the present role is: "To provide a voice for the people that even the largest administrative monster will hear above the grinding of its own machinery. Its role in society is not that of a judge but that of a minefield through which authority, great and small and at every level of policy and administration, must step wearily, conscious always that a false step may blow it up." And he said: "The basic commitment of journalism remains . the same. It is to report honestly [that means, sticking to the truth as near as possible], to comment fearlessly and to hold fast to independence. [This commitment to] Values call for honesty; honesty to those attacked as well as to those defended. [This] requires that facts shall not be distorted. What is said shall be said with both courage and fairness.”
“Of course, again it goes without saying, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that the balance of power must lie with the people. If it does not, then it is not a democracy. It can be anything else but a democracy. Francis Williams, again in his book, sees the press "as a weapon of freedom, a sword in the hands of those fighting old or new tyrannies, the one indispensable piece of ordnance in the armoury of democracy." These are strong words but they were necessary when the press was fighting for its freedom. Freedom of expression, Mr Deputy Speaker, which as I said, is so vital and the essence of democracy, cannot flourish unless there is in the citizens a right to know. Now, who supplies this right to know, if not the newspapers? If the newspapers fail in this duty to inform the citizens the truth, and honestly, then they cease to be a newspaper. They become an organ of whoever is in power and serve not the people but the government or the party in power. It has been said again in this collection of essays that in the American press, it is a self-appointed role to inform the public about government activities, thereby sparking open debate. In the middle of the last century, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when the government of the United Kingdom then was attempting to control what the press would publish, what the press would print, the Times in an Editorial in 1852 said: "The dignity and freedom of the press are trammelled from the moment it accepts an ancillary position. To perform its duties with entire independence and consequently with the utmost public advantage, the press can enter into no close or binding alliances with the statesmen of the day, nor can it surrender its permanent interests to the convenience of the ephemeral power of any government.”
“It must take it upon itself the responsibility to eke out any injustices, any wrongdoings committed against the people or even one member of the society, and to speak out against it. This freedom of expression and the role for the press have not been won easily in the countries where it now obtains. It has been won by the press in those countries recognising their responsibilities and their role, fighting for the freedom of expression through the press. In his book which he calls "An anatomy of the Press" entitled "Dangerous Estate", Francis Williams, who was an editor himself at one time, writes: "The development of the press is part of the history of national development. Much more than political constitutions, statistics of economic progress or demonstrations of national unity, the state of a country's newspapers discloses which rung of the ladder of civilisation has been reached. This is not only because newspapers reflect, as they must, public taste, but because the structure and status of the press show more revealingly than almost anything else the real stage of national development." He continues: "In a sense, even more profound than arises from its nature as a reporter of events, the press is the mirror of its age because the degree of authority and independence it is permitted to exercise, or is able to seize for itself and the nature of its influence of public opinion throw light in a way nothing else quite does on the real balance of power within a society." That is important. The newspapers reflect and throw light on the real balance of power within a society. It is by perusing the newspapers that any comer to a country will be able to gauge or to find out where the balance of power lies.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this House, recognising that an independent press is essential to the freedoms of the people, calls upon the Government to announce its readiness to grant a licence to a newspaper company to publish a newspaper independently and outside of Singapore Press Holdings with the assurance that no government control or pressure will be extended over the publication of news. Sir, this motion that I have tabled this evening is in line with the motions that I have tabled in the earlier sittings of Parliament urging for a greater freedom of expression in this country as is provided for in the Constitution. It goes without saying that freedom of the press is an integral, perhaps even the sine qua non of the freedom of expression. It is the press which will provide the people the freedom of expression that the Constitution guarantees in the widest manner possible. As was said in a collection of essays on the American press, the right of the people to speak out through a free press is the hallmark of a democratic society, and we in Singapore claim to be a democratic society. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 5.23 pm If that is to be maintained, Mr Deputy Speaker, then it is essential that we give our people, every citizen in Singapore, the right to speak out. As I said, this is only possible in the widest manner through a press which is fearless, independent, to speak out on behalf of the people. The press is one of the institutions of democracy. Some people might say that it is the most important institution of a democratic society. It is, along with the other institutions, the guardian of the liberty of the people.”
“Dr Lee Tsao Yuan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the relevant Government agencies will respond to each of the medium-term recommendations given in the report of the Committee on Singapore's Competitiveness, stating whether they accept the recommendation or, if they reject, the reasons for doing so.”