Lee Yock Suan
Singapore
“The position will be clear when the regulations have been drafted. Right now we are debating it in the absence of actual wording of the regulations. The regulations will be fair, they are meant to maintain a level playing field, and we should wait for the regulations before we pass judgement. The intention is not to go after everybody.”
“I think the Member will be aware that Internet is a very dangerous place. We can have all kinds of poison letters and they will just spread like wild fire. So we must have some means to try and minimise this and make sure that everything is orderly and fair.”
“The other Members have no problem supporting the Bill, including Mr Chiam. I think the position is about 95% clear. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Lee Yock Suan].”
“Then we will have to see the actual situation. But, as I said, the intention is to go after the popular sites, the main sites of parties and non-party political sites. If it is an individual, eg, a young man posting up his own site and saying "These are my views", we are not going to go after those people.”
“The intention is to make the rules clear for the main parties involved in the contest, in other words, the party websites. These are the areas we are mainly after.”
“I thank Mr Chiam for reminding me about his question. On listening to his speech, I was under the impression that he was asking whether this ban on opinion polls applies to the mass media. The answer is yes, it applies to all media, not just the Internet but also newspapers, TV and so on. Thank you for pointing this out.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,595 lines we hold for Lee Yock Suan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 32.
“Sir, the Members have asked about the immediate and long-term impact of Dr Mahathir's resignation on Singapore-Malaysia relations. In comments to the media on 1st July 2002, DPM Dr Tony Tan and DPM Lee Hsien Loong had both emphasised that Dr Mahathir's decision to step down in 2003 would not affect our bilateral relations with Malaysia. I fully agree. The three previous leadership changes in Malaysia had been smooth and orderly. There is no reason to expect that this transition will be any different. Dr Mahathir remains Prime Minister until after the OIC Meeting in Kuala Lumpur in October 2003. He has confirmed Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi as his successor. DPM Badawi is well known to us. We see no reason for any significant change in bilateral relations either immediately or in the long-term. The fundamentals of Singapore-Malaysia relations are not dependent on personalities. As close neighbours, we will work with whoever is in charge. ELECTRONIC AND INTERNET BANKING (Enhancement of security of depositors' accounts) 7. Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what steps will the Government take to enhance security of bank depositors' accounts and to prevent erosion of confidence in electronic and on-line banking in the light of several recent hacking incidents and (b) whether the Government will introduce harsher penalties as deterrent to such acts.”
“The other Members have no problem supporting the Bill, including Mr Chiam. I think the position is about 95% clear. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Lee Yock Suan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the remaining items of business under discussion on the Order Paper for today be exempted from this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.50 pm”
“The position will be clear when the regulations have been drafted. Right now we are debating it in the absence of actual wording of the regulations. The regulations will be fair, they are meant to maintain a level playing field, and we should wait for the regulations before we pass judgement. The intention is not to go after everybody. We think that the campaigning should be done by the party sites openly. Standing behind their platforms, their views, a lot of things can be done on the Internet. They can have chats, forums, speeches and their views. They can pick. They cannot have political films, because these are disallowed. Other than that, almost anything that you can think of is allowed. But if besides that, there are other sites actively campaigning for a particular party, then we would have to see what actions we should take on those sites. Mr Low Thia Khiang rose ---”
“The Government will be very reasonable and fair in whatever action it takes. And whatever action it takes has to be defended. If we are seen to be unreasonable, that might cost us votes.”
“The intention is to make the rules clear for the main parties involved in the contest, in other words, the party websites. These are the areas we are mainly after. But we are aware also that some of the so-called neutral sites, eg, Think Centre, they are obviously political in nature, their publications are slanted towards particular parties. So we also have to rope those in. Those will be our main targets. At the other end, there will be the individual websites which we are not concerned about. In between is a gray area. So it is a bit difficult for me to be very specific now. We will have to see what actually happens.”
“Well, we will have to study the law. But my impression is that they are liable. Of course, they are outside Singapore, and whether we can catch them is something else. But whoever targets Singaporeans, our laws will apply to them.”
“Then we will have to see the actual situation. But, as I said, the intention is to go after the popular sites, the main sites of parties and non-party political sites. If it is an individual, eg, a young man posting up his own site and saying "These are my views", we are not going to go after those people. We are only after the main broadcast medium, and an email is in the nature of private mail. It just happens to be on the Internet. So our intention is not to go after those but, at the same time, it is perfectly feasible for a member to arrange to send all kinds of messages through mass mailing and defeat the regulations. That is why we will have to study carefully how we can regulate the situation.”
“I think the Member will be aware that Internet is a very dangerous place. We can have all kinds of poison letters and they will just spread like wild fire. So we must have some means to try and minimise this and make sure that everything is orderly and fair. On the other point about third-party sites, I mentioned just now that third-party sites also have to comply with the Internet code of practice. We require specifically political sites and sites which are obviously political in nature and active political sites to be registered with the SBA. Otherwise, all the sites and web pages are covered under the Class Licence Scheme. And if they violate the rules with regard to, for example, information that could cause racial riots or is pornography, they could be fined or SBA can ask them to take down the websites.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I mentioned in my speech that for party political websites, the allowable features will include party posters and manifesto, candidate profiles, announcement of party events, party position on issues, moderated chats and discussion forums. This is not exclusive. There will be other elements which are still being drafted. The whole point is that this covers practically everything that they want to do. So as regards Mr Low's point about putting speeches on the Internet, why not? And even his own comments on rallies, again, why not? These are all covered. These are positions on issues. The point is that the party must be identified, eg, it is Workers' Party site and all these are Workers' Party's views. People can go and attend his rallies, they can read his speeches on the Internet. So this is definitely a step forward. This is allowing campaigning on the Internet, within certain regulations. What we want to do is to make sure that the parties and the people responsible know that they have to comply with the law, be careful that what they put up does not libel anybody or spread falsehoods. So I do not understand when Mr Low says it does not help. Sir, I get the impression that the hon. Member is opposing this just for the sake of opposing. We are allowing and he is opposing. Shall we just not allow? The other point is ---”
“I thank Mr Chiam for reminding me about his question. On listening to his speech, I was under the impression that he was asking whether this ban on opinion polls applies to the mass media. The answer is yes, it applies to all media, not just the Internet but also newspapers, TV and so on. Thank you for pointing this out. The answer is that the mass media is also covered.”
“That is why we corrected this situation where some of the sites like Think Centre and SINTERCOM were not registered. All we wanted is to get them to register and tell us who are behind the sites, the publishers and the people responsible. This way, we hope to put them on notice that they have to be responsible for their sites. The laws of the land will apply to cyberspace and, if they libel somebody, they can be sued. There could be other questions on Internet campaigning but I cannot trace them here. If hon. Members would like to raise them, I will try and answer them. I just want to answer the points raised by Mr Chiam about multiple candidature. It shows that he has an intention, before this Bill is passed, maybe to stand in Potong Pasir, and also in Jalan Besar GRC under the SDA. A kind of tikam-tikam, ie, "If I lose in a GRC, at least I still have Potong Pasir." I think he should be fair to the voters. If he wants to stand for an area and work for that area, he should just stand for that area. Why make use of this Victorian rule which is out of date? I want to make the point that what we have done is, really, very limited in scope. We are not curtailing freedom of speech. People can email, write letters to the press and speak freely. But, for the purpose of the election, during the election period, and for political websites and non-party political websites, we must have some rules to make sure that campaigning is orderly and fair to everybody.”
“" So the word "wireless" could mean handphones. I think SMS will be covered. But the point is if you are trying to send out, for example, your election poll results, firstly, you are not supposed to do it, but if you do it and you try and send it out by SMS to everybody, that will be violating the rules. But the intention is not to disallow a young man to SMS his girl friend and say, "Oh, I think this chap is speaking well or he looks very attractive" or maybe a female sending to her boy friend. Mr Seng Han Thong mentioned the point about pictures being stills but that they can be made to be moving. The Act, which disallows political films, is valid and will apply. It does not disallow audio broadcasting. For example, if audio messages are sent on the Internet, they are not captured under the Films Act. On the other hand, if technology allows us to piece together pictures as if they are moving pictures, then we will have to study to see whether in fact it is a political film. The reason is that films are very emotive. You can have a few sound bytes and influence elections by saying a few catchy phrases and there is nobody to come and counter you. That is why the Government decided some years back to disallow political films and political videos so that section of the Act will apply. A question was asked about foreign sites. The rules are intended to apply to all sites under the Class Licence Scheme. They are supposed to be responsible, should not do anything that instigates racial hatred, be against public interest, public morality and so on. All sites are bound by the Class Licence Scheme and, specifically, for political sites and sites which are obviously political in nature, they have to register with the SBA.”
“The intention is that, on that day itself, there should be a freeze on new advertising messages. This is in line with the current practice to allow the voters to reflect in a calm manner without disturbances on how they want to vote. On the other hand, we must allow the newspapers to report. So they will be reporting on the elections. And Mr Chiam claimed that the headlines are detrimental to the Opposition parties. I differ with that view. In fact, if I recall during our last elections in Cheng San, the report was full about Tan Liang Hong and his suits and counter suits, and so on. So how did they affect the election one way or the other? But the point is we do want to have silence and calm on Polling Day, and that is why we disallow new advertising messages on that day. Whatever is on the website already, it remains. But there should not be any changes. The newspapers and TV should be free to report the news. This question of mass e-mail is troubling quite a few people. I will have to get my officers to study this carefully. The intention here is to go after the broadcasters, the websites reaching out to a lot of people. The intention is not to go after individuals in their own private e-mailing. But the point is: will somebody hide behind this system and have a chain mail system and bypass our rules? So this is something that we have to study more carefully. A question was raised whether SMS, ie, the handphones that youngsters are very fond of using, will be covered. At the bottom of page 2, the Bill says: "'Publish' means make available to the general public, or any section thereof, in whatever form and by whatever means, including broadcasting (by wireless telegraphy or otherwise) and transmitting on what is commonly known as the Internet.”
“The report, from the Associated Press, states that the Singapore government has a "firm grip on the flow of information". I'm in Singapore, and I used the Internet to read this one-sided story. I also can access any Web site in the world critical of Singapore's government. In addition, the BBC World Service Radio airs here. The Singaporean government certainly cannot control what BBC broadcasts from London. The major American newsmagazines are sold here as well. They are required to be fair and allow the government a "right of reply" when it perceives they are unfair. This seems, however, to be asking for no more than journalistic integrity. Sadly, it was integrity that this report lacked. No regulation has yet been introduced in Singapore, but the reporter sounds as if he is sure it will be draconian. Meanwhile, the US government has been busy trying to regulate Americans' freedom of speech during elections. Is it just that we're (mostly) white and Western that we believe we can be trusted with such regulations, while Asians cannot?" This is an article by John B. Carpenter in Singapore. Most of the discussion today has been on the Internet campaigning. So I will deal with this item first. As I explained, the intention is to have a level playing field. We do need to have some kind of regulations. The intention is to come out with the positive list, through regulations, which will be available before the elections. Some questions have been asked about the new laws. For example, this question was raised about the new section 78B(e) relating to publication of any news relating to election in newspapers or in a radio or television broadcast. I think Mr Zulkifli mentioned this. I would like to point out that the new section 78B deals with Polling Day.”
“In drafting this regulation, the main concern is really with the broadcast media through the Internet, the party sites which are clearly identified with the parties and also those sites which are political in nature, in terms of content, which are required by the SBA Class Licence Scheme to be registered with us. The intention is to make clear to everybody that these are the people behind the Net, behind this web page, and that they are in fact political in nature even though they claim to be neutral. Other than that, they have been coming up with all kinds of views criticising the Government, and we take it in the right spirit. There is freedom of speech, there is freedom of information. You can access information from anywhere around the world. You can put your views on the Internet. If you want to e-mail your friends, by all means. But how do we know that it is not a party member who is sending thousands of e-mails out and bypassing our rules. How do we contain the problem, in what is basically a very noisy, very difficult environment where information and misinformation can spread equally quickly? At this point I will just read out to you some comments from an American who is living here, a gentleman called John B. Carpenter. This was published in the Washington Post on 18th July and is titled "Singapore internet story full of Western hypocrisy". This was in response to an article in the Washington Times by Mr Regan Morris of the Associated Press dated 16th July which was very quick off the mark after DPM Lee's speech on the launch of the PAP website. It reads: "As an American living in Singapore, I found the July 16 article about Singapore highly stereotyped and an example of why many in Asia are cynical about appeals for "freedom of speech".”
“They should not spread falsehoods, and they should not hide behind other sites, for example, non-party political sites, some of which are clearly slanted in their viewpoints and are just masquerading as neutral sites. The media, especially the foreign media, have been very fast to cry foul when DPM Lee Hsien Loong mentioned at the launch of the PAP website that we have to institute regulations to allow campaigning on the Internet. They assumed straightaway that we are going to clamp down, and all kinds of reports came out in the papers to criticise us and said that we were tightening controls. In fact, I do not know whether I am correct but I think even the Opposition Members here were caught by surprise that we are going to allow it. It is just a matter of how to do it. Of course, they have to oppose the Bill somehow. In the end, they did express some negative sentiments. But it is a fact that we are moving forward. The Internet is a very difficult place. It is full of noise. If misinformation is spread, it can go round the world several times within a day. So it is very important that for something so important as our General Elections the public is not misled and the parties should be fully responsible for their viewpoints. They should come out with reasoned arguments and state their positions. There are a lot of issues on which they have strong views. It is up to them to convince the public openly through their web pages - these are my views, this is why Government is wrong, etc, - and the PAP will respond in kind.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank all the 12 Members who have spoken on the Bill. The impression I got after listening carefully to the debate is that everyone supports the Bill in principle. In fact, I heard only a dissenting voice from Mr Chiam with regard to multiple nominations during elections and some comments on the opinion poll during elections. Apart from these comments, I think everybody supports the Bill in principle. The questions relate mainly to details about the regulations, what kind of positive list, how the law will apply in certain situations, how we differentiate between broadcast and individual communication, and so on. In fact, in drafting the Bill, the AG's Chambers has been very careful to try to be fair to everybody. It is a very complex subject and we will have to learn as we go along. Unfortunately, at this point in time, the detailed regulations are not ready yet. They will be ready before the elections. But we do have to get this Bill in place and debate on the principles of it. As I have explained in my Second Reading speech, in fact this is a positive step, in terms of liberalising the use of Internet for political campaigning. As compared to 1997, the Singapore Broadcasting Authority had to ask some parties to remove posters on their websites. This is definitely a big step forward. The rules will apply equally to all parties. Everybody can use the Internet to reach out to their voters, and to explain their positions. The key point is that they have to do it responsibly. They should be responsible for their sites. They should not libel anybody.”
“If his nomination for a Group Representation Constituency is invalidated, the nomination for the rest of the group would also be invalidated unless it can quickly file a fresh nomination before the close of nominations. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“The penalty for contravening the new sections 78C and 78D would be, upon conviction, a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both. Multiple nominations Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now deal with clause 5 of the Bill on the issue of multiple nominations in an election. Currently the Act does not prohibit a person from contesting in two or more constituencies in an election. He may even be returned successfully in all the constituencies. However, Article 47 of the Constitution requires him to give up all but one seat, as it stipulates that one cannot be a Member of Parliament for more than one constituency. An election candidate must be committed to a constituency when he contests there. Since the candidate can only take up one seat even if he wins in more than one constituency, there is no reason why he should be allowed to stand for election in more than one constituency. The existing law dates back to 1947, when the Singapore Legislative Council Elections Ordinance 1947 was enacted, and has its origins in Victorian England. Multiple candidatures are disallowed in Australia, New Zealand, UK local elections and European Parliament elections. As there is no good reason for this provision to continue to exist in Singapore, the Government has decided to amend the Act to disallow multiple nominations. Clause 5 inserts a new section 32A to deal with multiple nominations at a general election or when two or more by-elections are being held at the same time. The new section provides that if a candidate does not withdraw from nominations in all the electoral divisions for which he has been nominated except one, he will have all his nominations invalidated by the law.”
“A local website ran a poll on whether the death penalty in Singapore was supported. During the first seven days of the poll, some 83% of the respondents had voted in favour of the death penalty. Within the next four days, however, there was an about-turn resulting in the converse finding that 69% of the respondents were not in favour of capital punishment. How did such an about-turn occur? Opinion polls can also give rise to a "horse-race" mentality, which can distract voters from learning the candidates' qualifications and their positions on key issues. This unhealthy preoccupation with survey results distorts and trivialises the election process and the seriousness of purpose of a General Election. Laws governing the publication of opinion poll results will need to be put in place to prevent this from occurring. Some 30 countries in Europe, the Americas and Asia have imposed embargoes on the publication of election opinion polls and exit polls prior to, and on, Polling Day. For example, in Luxembourg, the embargo period is more than 30 days, for Italy 28 days, Venezuela 15 days and France 14 days. For Switzerland, Chile and Mexico, it is 7 days. Clause 7 of the Bill will insert a new section 78C to prohibit the publication of the results of any "election survey" which is defined as an opinion survey of how electors will vote at an election in respect of any candidate, group of candidates, political party or issue identifiable with them. This embargo will apply to all media, during the election period from the day of the issue of writ of election to Polling Day. The existing Act already prohibits the publication of exit polls. To remove any ambiguity, the new section 78D explicitly disallows the publication of exit poll results in all media on Polling Day.”
“Such restrictions are necessary to ensure a level playing field and that political parties do not make use of non-party political sites to circumvent the rules on election campaigning, including accountability for all election expenses and political donations. The full list of Internet features will be released when it is finalised. New section 78B will prohibit new displays of, or changes in, election advertising in all media on Polling Day. This is in line with current rules to disallow campaigning on Polling Day. This practice allows voters to reflect and vote in an atmosphere free from new election advertising messages on Polling Day. Section 78B, however, does not prohibit the publication of any news or current affairs coverage of the election in newspapers or in radio and television broadcasts. The penalties for contravening section 78A and 78B are, upon conviction, a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both. "Election Survey" and Exit Polls Sir, let me now turn to the issue of the impact of opinion polls on the electoral process and election outcomes. Opinion polls or surveys often give the illusion that they reflect public opinion on certain issues and could mislead the public. Quick polls often use small sample sizes, bad question design and improper sampling, leading to inaccurate or slanted results. For instance, in the recent US Presidential Elections, the early projections of election results by the major media networks were faulty and might have influenced the election outcome. The Internet makes it easy for anyone to conduct a survey online without proper controls, often leading to misleading or confusing results. Let me cite a recent example.”
“Worse, the anonymity in the Internet opens a door for surreptitious elements to mislead, distract and confuse the public. On the Internet, once a false story or rumour is started, it is like water that has been spilt. It is almost impossible to remedy matters, especially in the limited period of an election campaign. The Government has always maintained that politics should be based on factual and objective presentation of issues, and reasoned debate. Regulations are therefore necessary to protect the integrity of our electoral process, and guide responsible use of the Internet during the elections. Let me now highlight the new provisions on Internet campaigning. Clause 7 of the Bill inserts new sections 78A to 78E. Section 78A will empower the Minister to make regulations concerning Internet "election advertising" (as defined in clause 2) during the election period from the day the writ of election is issued to the close of all polling stations on Polling Day. These regulations will apply to political party websites and non-party political websites which are required to be registered with the Singapore Broadcasting Authority under its Class Licence Scheme. The regulations will stipulate the features which these websites may contain. For party political websites, the allowable features will include party posters and manifesto, candidate profiles, announcements of party events, party position on issues, moderated chats and discussion forums. However, non-party political sites should not campaign for any party. For example, they should not display party banners or candidate profiles.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Parliamentary elections are of vital importance to Singapore and should be conducted in a fair and orderly manner, free from distractions and undue influence. Our electoral processes also need to be updated to take into account new developments such as the Internet. This Bill proposes amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act to, firstly, regulate political campaigning on the Internet; secondly, prohibit the publication during the election period of the results of opinion surveys on how electors intend to vote; and, thirdly, disallow a person from contesting simultaneously in more than one constituency. I will cover each of these issues in turn. Internet Political Campaigning The General Election in 1997 took place under rules that predated the Internet and did not allow political parties to post election materials on their websites during the campaign. At the time, few people had access to the Internet. In the five years since, the popularity of the Internet has grown tremendously. Singapore already has the highest Internet penetration rate in Asia at 48%. Broadband access, which currently stands at around 90,000 subscribers, will become even more widespread in a few years. Mr Speaker, Sir, contrary to what the media have been speculating, the Government has decided to allow political campaigning on the Internet in the upcoming General Election. However, a free-for-all Internet campaigning environment without rules is not advisable. The Internet is a double-edged sword. Whilst it facilitates discussion and communication, the seriousness of political debates may be cluttered by noise, mischief or frivolities during the election period.”
“Yes. I think the right of reply is very important, but sometimes there may not be time. If it is during the election, we may reply but by then the election is over. So we have to take quite fast action. Otherwise, the intention is to study carefully, talk to the press or the offending party, check what they are doing, understand their real reason and have a reply, see whether there is a trend, and do the minimum necessary. We do not want to hurt ourselves in the process. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Lee Yock Suan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.55 pm”
“I think it is only fair and right that if a broadcaster makes a mistake, he should be prepared to present the opposing view and make a correction in the same media in which the mistake was made. I think it is a principle of natural justice surely. Why should we have to go and buy advertisements or use our own media? We are reaching a different audience. I think even if you talk to the media from the west, they will espouse our principle.”
“In fact, all our HDB flats are receiving the Malaysian channels, because it is a carry-on of past practice when we switched from broadcasting over the air to doing it through cable. So the same rules will apply to Malaysian TV, even though it is not a dedicated news channel. Another way we can punish an errant broadcaster is to move him up to a more expensive tier, for example. In an extreme case, we might just blank it out. That will be quite extreme. If we have to do that, we can do it. In fact, if all we want to do is to blank it out, we do not need this Bill. Because under section 41 of the Act, it gives us the power to proscribe broadcasters. But we want to be seen that we are not preventing the flow of information. The particular section 41 has certain requirements. It must be because of moral reasons, public order and so on. This is more specific. This is on the basis that broadcasters are here to do business. They want to have subscribers. They want to have advertisements. And so long as they play by our rules and do not interfere in our politics, everybody is happy. But if they consistently try to damage our institutions and cast a slur on our courts, for example, then we have to take action. Several Members asked whether we should have a committee to advise us on this matter. I do not think it is necessary, because the civil servants who are administering this Act are extremely careful. The people in the Ministry with whom I work with are most conscious of their mission, which is to promote Singapore as a media hub, and they will be very reluctant to take any action unless it is very clear that something has been transgressed. Sir, I have answered most of the points.”
“We will have to look at the whole series of events, the situation, how it is presented. And then we will have to be very careful before we take any action. Both Mr Simon Tay and Dr Lee were concerned about revoking without giving reasons. This is the way it has been drafted by the AG's Chambers. I think the key point is that it gives us the position of strength. In other words, it is something that we decide and it is final. In actual fact, we always explain what we do. Firstly, we are very careful in what we do. We do not just take arbitrary action. We talk to the press and tell them, "Look, what are you trying to do? Please desist from this line of reporting, or give us a right of reply." If they refuse and if there is a build-up, then we know that they are trying to be difficult. In every case that has happened in the past where a newspaper was gazetted, there was thorough explanation. Pages of our newspapers were taken up publishing in detail why we demanded a reply, where were the inaccuracies, where they corrected us. And it is our intention to continue that practice, and explain all our actions, because we have to justify ourselves to Singaporeans as well as to foreigners. Mr Simon Tay made the point that this is different from the NPPA, because the SCV is like a tap, which could be turned on and off. This is not quite right, because we can actually limit the number of people who can receive the particular channel. So it is like the newspapers. In the case of newspapers, it was limited to so many copies per year. In the same way, we can punish the foreign broadcaster by limiting the number of people who can receive that particular channel. The NMP may not be aware of this, but Malaysian TV is actually available on our SCV. There is no payment involved.”
“As I mentioned in my speech, the High Court had in fact ruled in one case against the Asian Wall Street Journal, and they have said that reports or editorial comments which went beyond what was factual could amount to "engaging in domestic politics", if they were made with a view to espouse political ideas or to influence public opinion. That is what the High Court said. If there are cases which are in doubt as a result of the Minister's ruling, they can be taken to court and challenged. Asian Wall Street Journal did it and there was a ruling. The same thing applies to other cases. I also mentioned in my speech and gave three examples of cases which could be construed as interfering in our domestic politics. I mentioned one case where, for example, the broadcaster refuses to give us the right of reply. I think that is basic. If they have done something wrong, that is, the report was twisted or inaccurate, and we demand a right of reply, they should give it to us. In fact, the damage has already been done because the wrong impression has been created. And some time thereafter, on the same programme our reply or, in the case of the print media, a small column somewhere they printed a correction or our reply. This is one instance that the right of reply is important. The second example I gave is where, in fact, money changed hands. There was one recent example where somebody was paid to appear in a programme. I think where there are paid programmes or where somebody tries to buy political advertising, that is very clear. It is clearly interfering in our domestic politics. As explained in my speech, we will have to look at the actual circumstances and decide on a case-by-case basis. It is not possible to define in black and white and say this is it.”
“The broadcasters whom we have spoken to generally understand the intent of this Bill. They do not like it, but I think they understand it. So long as they do not stray outside what they are doing now, there should be no difficulty. The impact on our media hub would be minimal. Because of what we have been doing, Singapore has developed very well as a media hub, as Mr Chew has pointed out. Today, we are home to 15 satellite broadcasters and 84 production houses. The number of foreign publications circulating here, which include International Herald Tribune (IHT), Asian Wall Street Journal, Economist and so forth, has grown to 5,500. We also have 40 foreign channels on SCV, including 5 foreign news channels. I would like to assure Mr Chew and other Members that we remain committed to make Singapore a media hub, to welcome foreign media to operate here, both to report on us as well as on the world and the region. We are, for example, offering generous tax incentives to encourage people to come here to package programmes, to uplift and to broadcast to the region. Many of the broadcasters who are operating here have told us that they are extremely happy here. It is good that we set our ground rules clearly so that there will be a minimum of conflict arising from misunderstandings. I hope the foreign media will take it in this light. Mr Jeyaretnam asked a few questions. Basically, the point is: how do we define "interference in domestic politics"?”
“In fact, the laws are extra-territorial because they are trying to impose their laws on what is outside, ie, broadcasting outside. Here, we are trying to control foreign broadcasters who are carried in Singapore through our SCV. The reason why we are not limiting this just to the election period is that you can easily build up a negative image or twist the facts and convey a negative impression and influence public opinion, even outside the election period. That is the reason why both the NPPA and this amendment on which it is modelled have the same intention. Basically, it is to lay the ground rules very clearly to all these foreigners that they are welcome to do business here. They are also welcome to report on us as observers, but they should not interfere, they should not have an agenda, because it is going to be quite difficult to judge, depending on the actual reporting, what it is that they are trying to do. But I believe if you follow the developments leading up to the NPPA, you will see that certain articles have a consistent pattern about them. They even went to the extent of refusing to publish the replies in toto. In one case - I think it was the Far Eastern Economic Review, they only published when we bought advertisements. In other cases, they only printed our reply after editing it and cutting out the essential portions. We will, of course, be very careful on how we implement this law. The officers, the SBA staff and our own Ministry officers, will monitor and be extremely careful to see whether this is fair comment, is it fair reporting, is it balanced, is it accurate or is there something that the broadcaster is really after. Coming back to Mr Chew Heng Ching's point, I think the impact will be minimal.”
“Sir, I wish to thank Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. My general impression is that although there are some misgivings, by and large, all those who have spoken, including possibly Mr Jeyaretnam, agree that foreigners should not be allowed to interfere in our domestic politics. It is only a question of how we define what is interference, what are the instances in which we will act, whether we should have people to advise us, and so forth. But the basic concept is accepted, that our politics is for ourselves alone, it is for Singaporeans to decide, not for foreigners to come in to tell us what we should do in Singapore. I will respond to the Members in the order in which they have spoken. Mr Chew Heng Ching supports the Bill, but is concerned about the possible negative impressions of our media scene, whether it will affect our image as a media hub. I would like to assure him that this is very unlikely. My own assessment is that this Bill will have very little consequence in practice because so long as the broadcasters stay to what they are doing so far, that means, be objective, report the news, by all means report on Singapore, but be objective, accurate, do not take sides, do not try to be "funny" in terms of our local politics, there should be no problem. In fact, my Ministry has gone to great lengths to brief the foreign correspondents and the broadcasters who will be affected. Most of them understand the intention of our action. What we are doing here is nothing new. We have, for example, studied what has been done in Canada and the UK. In those two cases, as Mr Simon Tay has pointed out, they are more narrow in scope. They are confined to the elections. In many other respects, they are the same.”
“If a foreign broadcaster chooses to abuse the privilege, it will have to suffer the financial penalty of a restriction in distribution or advertising in Singapore. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Under the new section 42A, subsection (1) will empower the Minister, by order published in the Gazette, to declare any foreign broadcasting service carried on any relevant licensable broadcasting service as engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore. Subsection (2) requires the Minister's prior approval for any person to rebroadcast in Singapore any declared foreign broadcasting service. Subsection (3) empowers the Minister to approve the rebroadcast in Singapore, subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, or he may refuse or revoke such approval. Under subsection (4), the Minister may restrict the number of persons who may receive the service and may suspend the service for a specified period. Under subsection (5), the penalty for contravening subsection (2) or failing to comply with a condition imposed under subsection (3a) is a fine not exceeding $100,000 upon conviction. Scope of coverage The amendment will apply to foreign broadcasters carried on SCV's cable network. However, with rapid advances in technology, there will be new ways of delivering television services. Where appropriate we could in future include as licensable broadcasting services other broadcasting platforms when they become relevant, but for now the amendments apply only to foreign broadcasting services carried on SCV. Conclusion In conclusion, Sir, we welcome foreign broadcasters to broadcast in or from Singapore. We will extend all facilities to help them operate successfully here. However, those who broadcast to Singapore audiences should provide objective and accurate reporting and not engage in the domestic politics of Singapore.”
“The notion of what constitutes "engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore" in the NPPA was tested in court in 1989. The High Court ruled that reports or editorial comments which went beyond what was factual could amount to "engaging in domestic politics", if they were made with a view to espouse political ideas or to influence public opinion. The court also explained that the provision in the NPPA made clear that the domestic politics of Singapore is a matter reserved for Singaporeans. The proposed amendment to the SBA Act follows similar principles. As provided in the Bill, the Minister will decide whether a foreign broadcasting service is "engaging in domestic politics". This will be based on reasonable and proper grounds. Let me illustrate with some examples. The first example is a foreign broadcaster which denies Singapore the right of reply to inaccurate, biased, or distorted reporting of issues concerning Singapore. A second example is one which conducts political broadcasts such as advertising directed towards a political end or programmes featuring any politician who pays the broadcaster or is paid by the broadcaster, or remunerated in other ways, to appear in the broadcast. A third example is a foreign broadcaster which conducts broadcasts made with a view to espouse political ideas or to influence public opinion in Singapore. All these can be deemed as "engaging in domestic politics". A decision has to be made based on the particular circumstances of the case and this may vary according to time and context. Amendment to SBA Act Let me now highlight some aspects of the Bill.”
“They should do so factually and accurately, without bias or distortion. However, they should not be involved in local political issues, or try to influence Singaporeans on such issues. In our General Elections, for example, they should not take sides either for or against any political party or politician in their reporting. Our position on this matter is a reasonable one. Singaporeans should decide the fate of Singapore and not foreigners. Foreign broadcasters have no stake in Singapore. If their reporting creates problems, they will not suffer the consequences. For example, if incendiary reporting causes racial riots and destabilises Singapore, it is Singaporeans who suffer as confidence collapses and jobs are lost. Other countries like Canada and the UK also have legal safeguards to prevent outside interference. The Canada Elections Act 2000 prohibits the use of a broadcasting station outside Canada by any person for the purpose of influencing an election in Canada. The Act also stipulates that no foreigner should try to influence voters during an election in Canada. The UK Representation of the People Act 1983 similarly prohibits any person from using a broadcasting station outside the UK to influence an election in the UK. Such programmes can only be carried by local broadcasters which are subject to a legal duty and a code of practice to be politically impartial. Engaging in Domestic Politics In Singapore the NPPA has set the ground rules for foreign newspapers to operate here. Many of them have sizeable circulation in Singapore. This policy of non-interference in domestic politics and our right of reply are established policies which over the years the foreign publications have come around to accept.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." During the debate on my Ministry's budget on 9th March, I announced the Government's intention to amend the Singapore Broadcasting Authority (SBA) Act for the purpose of restraining foreign broadcasters from any interference in Singapore's domestic politics. I explained that the foreign media operate here as a matter of privilege and not of right. We welcome them to come to Singapore to report on local and regional developments, based on the principles of accuracy, fairness and balance. However, they must not engage in our domestic politics, as this is the preserve of Singaporeans. In 1986 Parliament amended the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) to gazette and limit the circulation of foreign newspapers which engage in the domestic politics of Singapore. This Bill extends the same principles to foreign television channels which are rebroadcast in Singapore by Singapore Cable Vision (SCV). Since 1995 when SCV began operations, the number of foreign channels available to Singaporeans has increased from a few to 40 channels today. Out of these channels, five are specialised news channels, namely, CNBC Asia, CNN International, BBC World, CTN and Bloomberg. Subscription to SCV cable TV has also grown to 260,000 today. The penetration rate was 26% in January and is expected to exceed 40% by 2005. Clearly cable TV can have a significant impact on our domestic audience. Rationale for New Rules Sir, this Bill makes it clear to foreign broadcasters that whilst they can sell their services to Singaporeans, they should not interfere with our domestic politics. Foreign broadcasters are outsiders and not participants in our political scene. As outsiders and observers, they can report on Singapore.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2001/2002, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“I cannot remember exactly what is this incident about the SIA crash that was inaccurately reported. But I am sure you have noticed that whenever the papers make mistakes, they are quite fast in correcting their errors. For example, when Ministries detect the errors, we will write to them and the correction will come out very quickly. So if there are instances where the public feel aggrieved about errors, they should write to the newspapers. And I am sure the newspapers will be careful about their professionalism and be clear about their credibility and accuracy. POLYTECHNICS (Recruitment of foreign students by "agents") 4. Mr Thomas Thomas asked the Minister for Education (a) if he is aware that polytechnics use "agents" to recruit foreign students; and (b) what steps are taken to prevent abuse.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a fact that the Ministry receives very few complaints from the public about the newspapers. When complaints that violate the guidelines are received, we can refer these complaints to the PAC. So it has not been a problem so far. The system has worked well. As far as I can assess from reading the new newspapers, although there is increasing competition, with vigilance on our part, the Ministry's part as well as the PAC, the general quality has not gone down. Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: Sir, the Minister has said that the quality has not gone down. But I would like to ask him if it is not indeed time, even if it is just the existing committee, to be looking into issues like, as Mr Tay says, morality and ethics, and to stop this practice of newspapers, for example, putting out articles which appear to be investigative reports but which are really paid advertisements? Mr Lee Yock Suan: If the Member has specific complaints of cases, he can bring them to my attention. We are reviewing the process all the time and we are watching how the newspapers develop. Of course, with increasing competition, we realise that there is a tendency to publish, for example, photographs of women, which are more revealing. So we have to watch them all the time. But my general feeling is, with what is being done at the moment, the situation is fine and we need not over-react.”
“CAUSEWAY (Replacement with bridge) The following question stood in the name of Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin - 8. To ask the Minister for National Development whether there was any agreement or decision made with the Malaysian Government to replace the existing causeway with a bridge.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry and the PMB are aware that there are costs involved in preserving these buildings. But I hope the building owners realise that these are important historical and national assets. As far as possible, we have tried to accommodate the requirements and the needs of the owners. For example, recently, during the opening of the MITA Building, I announced that we have come up with a new scheme known as Monuments Category II where we allow the building owners to redevelop the building so long as they preserve essential components of the building. It might be certain sections like the facade. This is following the approach taken by URA where they have conserved certain areas in Chinatown and Little India, so that the development potential of the building is preserved, the plot ratio is still allowed within the limits as set out in the Master Plan, and so on. There are two buildings which have been gazetted under this category and these are the MacDonald House where we had the bomb incident during Confrontation, and the other one is Cathay Building. In these two cases, there will be substantial redevelopment. We are only preserving the front of the MacDonald House and, for Cathay Building, we are only preserving the podium and the entrance. The Cathay Building will be redeveloped into a cineplex with seven or eight cinemas. It will be a very interesting and attractive redevelopment. But having said that, I am not so sure whether there is a need for further incentives. I think the Ministry has tried to preserve the values of the buildings in so far as to allow redevelopment within the limits of their potential under the Masterplan, but to go beyond that is something I am not sure whether Government will agree.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, broadly the criteria are in two groups. One group would be the historical aspects, and the other group will be the architectural aspects. So there are two different bodies looking at these two aspects. The one looking at the architectural aspect is chaired by somebody from URA who is familiar with architecture and so on. The two different committees will award points for the two sets of criteria and, if they meet the cut-off point, the building will be considered for preservation.”
“The Preservation of Monuments Board (PMB) and the National Heritage Board (NHB) have done some research on Alexandra Hospital and the SAF NCO Clubhouse. During the war, on 14th and 15th February 1942, Japanese soldiers massacred an estimated 200 staff and patients of Alexandra Hospital. The hospital and NHB have already put up a plaque to mark the history of the building. PMB is studying the historical and architectural significance of Alexandra Hospital building to see if it qualifies under current guidelines to be gazetted as a national monument. The SAF NCO Clubhouse was built as a clubhouse in 1951 by the British for their servicemen. When the British withdrew in 1969, the building was handed over to the Singapore Government. It became the SAF NCO Clubhouse in 1974. From PMB's research, this building does not have sufficient historical significance to qualify as a national monument. NHB will consider installing a plaque on the history of the building at the Club.”
“My Ministry has been working closely with the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, and the Ministry of National Development to reduce the noise problem from vehicles and MRT trains on nearby residential areas and schools. Some of the measures taken include the imposition of set-back distance on roads and train tracks from residential buildings, noise standards for new and in-use vehicles, road design, and the use of low-noise MRT trains. Studies have shown that the noise levels at residential buildings and schools near roads and MRT tracks are generally within the guidelines adopted by ENV. The Land Transport Authority previously studied the use of noise barriers along expressways. It found that such barriers may not be effective in shielding noise in Singapore's high-rise setting, because they cannot effectively block the noise on the higher floors, unless they completely envelop the entire expressway. Nevertheless, LTA will study each case on its own merits, and if feasible and effective, will consider erecting noise barriers. We must recognise however that in land-scarce and highly-urbanised Singapore, some degree of noise pollution is inevitable. While we can impose certain building set-back and other requirements at the planning stage for new developments, there is much less room to reduce noise problem in built-up areas with an intensive road network and heavy traffic flows. TRAFFIC CONGESTION ALONG THE CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY 16. Dr Ker Sin Tze asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology how he proposes to solve the traffic congestion problem at the Braddell Road exit along Central Expressway towards Ang Mo Kio.”
“Mr Goh is referring to Esplanade-Theatres on the Bay, which was originally planned for completion in February 2001. Due to complexity in the design and construction, the completion date is now targeted for November 2001. The centre is expected to be operational by July 2002. The project was originally estimated to cost $513 million in July 1995 when it was approved. This was revised to $595 million after the superstructure tender was closed in September 1997. The increase in project cost of $81 million or 16% was caused by inflation in construction cost, higher costs for basement construction and higher costs of preliminaries for the complex works. A large part of the cost increase was due to the site's very poor soil conditions, the Esplanade's unique structure and additional building elements which are required to respond to the site conditions, including sound insulations from underground trains. The additional costs had to be incurred to ensure that the quality of the arts centre is not compromised. METAL PLATES AT ROAD DIVERSION WORK 34. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology whether the use of metal plates as road surface for road diversion in the construction of North-East MRT Line poses a hazard to road users.”
“Local media companies publish and broadcast reports as they see fit. They are responsible for their editorial policies. If the Government does not agree with certain reports or when there are factual errors, the relevant Ministry may write in to the media to correct the reports or to dissociate the Government from certain points of view. SHELTERED WALKWAYS 31. Mr Tay Beng Chuan asked the Minister for Communications and Information Technology whether his Ministry will consider building sheltered walkways linking the major private residential estates and large commercial buildings in the Central Business District with MRT stations and bus shelters like those provided in HDB estates so as to encourage more Singaporeans to make full use of public transport and to help the national effort in easing the increasing traffic congestion on our roads and in conserving energy.”
“Sir, there is no monopoly. There are so many newspapers, although they are under the SPH umbrella. But they all compete like cats and dogs. ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 2000 TO 31ST MARCH, 2001 (Paper Cmd. No. 2 of 2000) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [7th Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Head J (cont.) - Resumption of Debate on Question [14th March, 2000]. "That the total sum to be allocated for Head J of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100." - [Dr S. Vasoo]. Question again proposed.”
“Sir, we believe in a free market here, whether it is for advertisements or for other things. I think we should leave it to market forces. If the newspapers are too expensive, the advertisers can resort to other media. For example, we get a lot of junk mail in our post boxes. There are also the TV and other media that they can use.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is currently studying the local media structure to keep it abreast of market and technological changes. Whilst it is useful to have market competition, the control of the domestic media should remain in local hands because of their unique nation-building role. They can help unify and share local highpoints and viewpoints among Singaporeans, and get the Government's official position through to the people. Foreigners must not be able to use media to influence local politics. Our present rules, such as the 3% cap on ownership by any one person and the requirement that only Singaporeans may own management shares, are thus still relevant because they ensure that these goals are met.”
“"That the total sum to be allocated for Head T of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100." - [Mr Charles Chong]. Question again proposed. Dr Jennifer Lee (Nominated Member): Sir, I was very happy to hear from the Minister on Saturday that MOM would like to see even a small percentage of the women who have stopped work to return to the workforce, and also that funding is not an issue for the Skills Redevelopment Programme (SRP) as it has surplus unused funds. The SRP focuses its attention mainly on retraining retrenched workers and on upgrading currently employed workers who have inadequate or obsolete skills. I believe that it does not currently provide for housewives or homemakers, women who have previously stopped work, to attend to family responsibilities, but would now like to rejoin the workforce. There are many issues to be addressed in getting women back to work, but one of them is that these women need to be reskilled, both from the perspective of updating their outdated skills as well as simply to regain confidence in being able to cope in a workplace environment again. Flowing from the Minister's two points on Saturday, I would like to ask him to consider extending the support of the SRP to such women. 12.45 pm”