Hansard, 1988-01-27

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr Chai Chong Yii (Bukit Batok) - from 20th to 29th January, 1988. Dr Yeo Ning Hong (Kim Seng), Minister for Communications and Information and Second Minister for Defence (Policy) - from 21st to 23rd January, 1988. BG Lee Hsien Loong (Teck Ghee), Minister for Trade and Industry and Second Minister for Defence (Services) - from 21st to 23rd January and from 1st to 6th February, 1988. Dr Tay Eng Soon, PBM (River Valley), Minister of State, Ministry of Education - from 24th to 30th January, 1988. Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng (Mountbatten), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry and the Minister for the Environment and Deputy Government Whip - from 24th to 30th January, 1988. Encik Sidek bin Saniff (Kolam Ayer), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry - from 24th to 30th January, 1988. Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng (Joo Chiat), Speaker - from 24th to 27th January, 1988. Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol) - from 24th to 30th January, 1988. Mr Chng Hee Kok (Radin Mas) - from 24th to 30th January, 1988. Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan) - from 24th to 30th January, 1988. Dr S. Vasoo (Bo Wen) - from 24th to 30th January, 1988. Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee) - from 24th to 30th January, 1988. Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah) - from 24th to 30th January, 1988. Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon) - from 24th to 30th January, 1988. Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Eunos) - from 24th to 30th January, 1988. Mr S. Dhanabalan (Kallang), Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for National Development - from 20th to 29th January, 1988. Encik Yatiman Yusof (Kampong Kembangan), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs - from 25th to 29th January, 1988. Mr Chew Heng Ching (Kaki Bukit) - from 25th to 29th January, 1988. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua) - from 25th to 29th January, 1988. Mr Goh Chok Tong (Marine Parade), First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence - on 27th January, 1988. Mr Lim Chee Onn (Bukit Merah) - on 27th January, 1988. Dr Toh Chin Chye (Rochore) - on 27th January, 1988. Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra), Deputy Speaker - from 28th January to 7th February, 1988. Mr Ong Teng Cheong (Kim Keat), Second Deputy Prime Minister - from 29th to 31st January, 1988. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam (Sembawang), Minister for Education - from 3rd to 6th February, 1988. Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau (Kreta Ayer), Minister for Finance - from 16th to 20th February, 1988. Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein) - from 14th to 18th March, 1988. TAN SOO KHOON Deputy Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bill was assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated: 21st January, 1988 Income Tax (Amendment) Bill. TAN SOO KHOON Deputy Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for National Development whether any study has been made on the traffic flow along Nicoll Highway following the completion of Marina Centre and East Coast Expressway and whether there is a need to convert the 'time-controlled' carriageway into a normal dual carriageway.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister. The PWD regularly monitors traffic conditions along Nicoll Highway. Immediately after the opening of the East Coast Parkway in 1981, there was considerable reduction in Nicoll Highway traffic because of the decanting of cross-town traffic to the East Coast Parkway. However, traffic volumes have been increasing over the last six years. Following the opening of the roads in Marina Centre, the PWD had re-timed the reversible-lane arrangement to optimize the use of the available traffic lanes along Nicoll Highway. There are no immediate plans to remove the reversible-lane system along Nicoll Highway and convert the road to a normal dual-carriageway road as the present arrangement is working satisfactorily.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Heng Chiang Meng - 2. To ask the Minister for National Development whether the expected increased cost of land acquisition by the Government will result in higher prices of Housing and Development Board flats.

Question 2, Sir.

Sir, the recent change in land acquisition compensation will increase the Government's cost of acquiring land for public development including public housing. In the case of land for public housing, this increased cost to Government has to be met by either taxpayers or by HDB flat purchasers. The prices of HDB flats are not determined solely by land cost and construction cost. HDB prices its flats to keep them within the limits of affordability by Singaporeans. While the Board tries to adopt more market-related practices such as premium and discount pricing, flats will continue to be priced to achieve our policy of a full home-owning society. The recent change in land acquisition compensation will not in itself result in higher prices of HDB flats.

The following question stood in the name of Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon - 3. To ask the Minister for the Environment whether his Ministry will intensify its checks on vegetables in Singapore to ensure that they are fit for human consumption in view of the death of 26 birds at the Jurong Bird Park caused by the consumption of vegetables containing high levels of pesticides.

Question 3, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the incriminated vegetables that have caused the death of some 26 birds in the Bird Park came from a farm in Lim Chu Kang. The farmer had used an approved pesticide, Methamidophos, but he had disregarded the instructions given to him by the Primary Production Department on how to use this pesticide. Pressed to supply the vegetables to the Bird Park, he proceeded to harvest the vegetables earlier than normal and therefore too soon after he had applied the pesticide on the vegetables. As a result the pesticide residue was high when the vegetables were delivered to the Park. Incidentally, Sir, this pesticide is toxic to birds if consumed at levels exceeding the allowable limit. As the vegetables were not washed before they were given to the birds, a number of birds died when they consumed the vegetables. My Ministry takes a serious view of such irresponsible acts. Farmers who disregard proper instructions on the use of pesticides will be prosecuted for selling vegetables with high pesticide residue. All through last year, Sir, the Ministry has monitored very closely the problem of pesticide residues in vegetables. A total of 10,310 consignments of imported vegetables were tested, of which 2,178 or 21% were found to be unsatisfactory. The vegetables were subsequently destroyed. 13 summonses were also issued to the importers. Checks were also made on local farms. A total of 463 samples of vegetables were taken from local farms in 1987 and 26 or 5.6% were found to be unsatisfactory. The unsatisfactory vegetables were also destroyed. The errant farmers were warned and taught the proper procedures. Samples were taken on re-inspections and they were found to be satisfactory. The Ministry therefore considers the present checks on vegetables to be sufficiently intensive. Enforcement actions against recalcitrant farmers will be stepped up. The Ministry will continue to remind members of the public to wash the vegetables before they cook or consume them.

Sir, may I ask the Minister what is the damage to health caused by ingesting vegetables contaminated with Methamidophos pesticide?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if vegetables containing excessive levels of Methamidophos are consumed, unwashed, the person may exhibit symptoms of food poisoning, for example: vomitting, diarrhoea. He will recover fully upon treatment, without any residual effect of ill-health.

asked the Minister for the Environment how many newspaper sellers were issued with summonses to appear in court for setting up stalls to sell evening newspapers by the roadside in 1986 and 1987; and what were the reasons for the enforcement action against them.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my Ministry took enforcement action against 26 evening newspaper vendors in 1986 and 2 last year. The Ministry took action against these newspaper vendors because they had set up stalls at bus stops, expressways or main roads which have a speed limit of 70 kph and above causing serious traffic hazards.

Sir, may I ask the Minister whether these people have been warned first and whether they have been told of the reasons for such actions taken against them before these written summonses were issued?

The normal procedure, Sir, is to warn these people not to sell their newspapers along expressways and highways; they are always encouraged to conduct their business along side roads which will not cause traffic hazards before summonses are issued.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information what safety regulationsschool bus operators have to observe and whether the number of breaches increased in the years 1983 to 1987.

Sir, on behalf of my Minister. Sir, the ROV and the Traffic Police constantly monitor the safety of school buses. Operators of school buses have to comply with safety measures and to see to the safe boarding and alighting of school children. For example, a speed limit of 50 kph is applied on school buses. All school buses are required to have a dual brake system which prevents total brake failure. They are also subjected to an annual inspection and those above 10 years are checked bi-annually. Those that fail would not be allowed on the roads until the faults have been rectified. All school buses are also required to have rear warning lights which warn motorists that boarding and alighting is taking place. There is also a light to warn the driver if the door is not closed properly and a buzzer to warn the passengers that the door is going to close. In addition, every bus which is licensed to carry more than 30 school children must have a licensed conductor or attendant. Sir, the Member has asked if the number of breaches of these safety regulations has increased in the years 1983 to 1987. ROV does not have such statistics. However, the number of accidents involving school buses has dropped by one-third, from 966 in 1983 to 621 in 1987. Most of the accidents or nearly 90% are minor with no injuries sustained. This is the result of constant monitoring and enforcement by the ROV and the Traffic Police and reflects an improvement in safety awareness. Another important fact in school bus safety is passenger education. In this regard, the Traffic Police has an on-going road safety programme for school children. Sir, like the Members of this House, my Ministry is also concerned with safety of school buses because they carry our young school children. The ROV will, together with the Traffic Police, look into the continual upgrading of safety measures to ensure that travel on school buses remains safe.

Sir, may I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary how does the Ministry actually monitor the situation of the bus drivers supervising the alighting and boarding of the school children at the various pick-up points in streets and estates. How does his Ministry actually do it especially on rainy days because I believe that there are many instances where children are not actually supervised. The other question is whether the Ministry would consider further measures to upgrade school buses so that they are not only safe but also comfortable, perhaps to air-condition the school buses because many of these school children are very young and they have to travel long hours in the buses.

Sir, as I mentioned in my reply, a school bus that is licensed to carry more than 30 school children must have an attendant. So I presume the attendant will be able to look after the boarding and alighting of school children. For those carrying less than 30 children they are mainly mini-buses. I think the driver can render personalised service. However, I will ask ROV to take note of the Member's remarks. As regards the upgrading of school buses, Sir, the mandatory life span of a school bus is 20 years. So it is inevitable that we see some of these old buses still running on the road. But, mind you, Sir, these buses are subjected to a yearly inspection. Those above 10 years old are bi-annually inspected. So they are safe, they are well-maintained and road worthy. As to the point whether school buses should be air-conditioned, I think we will leave this to the operators. If the parents are prepared to pay more, I do not think we will object to it.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the earnings of taxi drivers have been affected since the partial operation of the Mass Rapid Transit system and whether the Registry of Vehicles has ceased issuing further taxi driving licences with the operation of the MRT system.

Sir, the MRT system has only been in partial operation for less than three months. So it is very premature to try to draw conclusions on the impact of the MRT on the earnings of taxi drivers. But data show that for the months of November and December 1987, the collections by taxi drivers have been much higher than that for the corresponding period last year in 1986. Sir, we are, however, constantly monitoring the situation closely, as new stages of the MRT system are being introduced for public service. Let me take this opportunity, Sir, to give some figures to enable Members of this House to develop a sense of perspective of the overall taxi situation. Over the past two years, average monthly collections for taxi drivers have been showing an upward trend. For single-shift drivers, collection has increased from the base figure of $2,439 per month before April 1985 to $2,656 per month in 1986 and then sharply upwards to $3,007 per month in 1987. This represents an increase of about $217 per month and $568 per month respectively for 1986 and 1987. Similarly, the average monthly collection for taxi drivers operating two shifts increased from the base figure of $3,482 per month before April 1985 to $3,894 per month in 1986 and again another sharp increase to $4,352 per month in 1987. The figures represent an increase of $412 per month for 1986 and $870 per month for 1987. Sir, these increases quite obviously are well in excess of the $91 per onth that taxi drivers pay for the diesel tax. Sir, it is clear that the fare and tax adjustments in April 1985 had achieved the expected results even though the initial implementation was made difficult because of the coincidence with the onset of the worst recession that we ever had in 20 years. Today, the commuters are better off. They have no difficulty getting a taxi any time of the day. The taxi drivers are better off. They earn a lot more. Other road users are also better off. The number of taxis has stopped increasing so they do not contribute to increasing congestion on our roads. Sir, Singaporeans in general realize that the policies have worked and have worked well. That is why over the last two years, since May 1985 another 13,000 Singaporeans have taken up taxi driving lessons with NTUC Comfort and Singapore Com- muter Ltd and have qualified for taxi vocational licences. The ROV is the examining body certifying that the holder of a taxi vocational licence is fit to drive a taxi. ROV should not interfere with market forces and arbitrarily control the number of licences. As long as there are Singaporeans wanting to be taxi drivers and willing to take the course available, ROV will continue to conduct the test and issue the licences.

asked the Minister for Labour if he will (i) explain the policy on the marriage of Singaporeans to work permit holders and (ii) give the number, from 1978 to 1987, of work permit holders who were banned from entering Singapore because they had breached the marriage policy.

asked the Minister for Labour how many applications for marriage between work permit holders and Singapore citizens were received by his Ministry for the years 1985 to 1987; how many of them were approved and how many were rejected; what were the reasons for the rejections; and whether he will be more liberal in considering rejected cases which have been submitted on appeal.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer Questions Nos. 7 and 8 together as they are closely related?

All right.

The policy concerning marriages between work permit holders with Singaporeans has been in force since 1973. As a condition of their work permits, foreign workers are required to obtain the approval of the Commissioner for Employment if they wish to marry Singapore citizens or permanent residents. Approval is granted if the foreign worker has skills or qualifications that are of value to Singapore and has adjusted to our social and work ethos. If a work permit holder violates the policy and contracts marriage with a Singaporean without the approval of the Commissioner, his work permit will be cancelled and he will be banned from entry into Singapore. The entry ban has been made a permanent one since July 1984. We have to control marriages between work permit holders and Singaporeans because our work permit policy allows liberal entry of large numbers of foreign workers to ease our labour shortage. Most of these foreign workers are unskilled and unqualified. Under normal immigration controls, they would not have been allowed into Singapore for extended periods of stay, let alone given opportunities to sink roots through marriages with Singaporeans. Their purpose here is to seek employment and they are allowed in on a short-term basis as part of a revolving pool of foreign workers. Between 1978 and 1984, before the implementation of the permanent entry ban, 3,072 or an average of 440 work permit holders per year had breached the marriage restriction policy. Since the implementation of the permanent ban in July 1984, the number who have contravened the policy is 692, an average of 200 per year. The policy, which has been in force since 1973, is well known to the public. Those who choose to violate the policy have to live with the consequences. Whilst sympathizing with them, our policies must be geared to protect the interests of the vast majority of Singaporeans who live on this small island. If our immigration and work permit policies are too liberal, we run the danger of being swamped by many potential immigrants who wish to seek a better life here. Coming to Question No. 8, Sir, for the years 1985 to 1987, my Ministry received a total of about 5,000 applications for marriage between Singapore citizens and work permit holders who were not permanent residents. About 70% of them were approved. Marriage approvals are given to work permit holders who have skills or qualifications of value to Singapore and who have adapted to our way of life. I will consider appeals on their individual merits.

Sir, what measures will be taken against the children of Singapore citizens who have breached the marriage policy, especially when such children were not born in Singapore?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my Ministry does not take any action against the children of couples who have breached the marriage policy. However, where these children are not Singapore citizens, they are subject to immigration rules applicable to non-citizens.

asked the Minister for Community Development whether and when a sports centre will be built in Yishun New Town.

A sports centre comprising a Sports Complex (Track and Field) and an Indoor Stadium has been planned for Yishun Neighbourhood VIII. Tenders for the Sports Complex and Indoor Stadium are expected to be called soon. The facilities are expected to be ready by mid-1990.

Sir, can I ask the Minister to urge the relevant authority to try to expedite the completion of the sports complex and stadium because Yishun is now a very large new town with 5% of the total population of Singapore living there and most of them are young people to whom the sports facilities are very important.

Sir, however fast we try to expedite, I think time is needed for planning, for building, construction, inspection and, finally, ensuring that it is fit for use. In any case, I will bear in mind the Member's request and I will ask the authorities to try and expedite.

asked the Minister for Community Development whether and when a second void-deck/shophouse community centre will be set up in Yishun New Town.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am answering in my capacity as Deputy Chairman of the People's Association. The People's Association plans to set up a temporary community centre at two shop units at Block 235 Yishun Ring Road by about June 1988. The Member for Nee Soon will be consulted on this before the centre is built.

Sir, will the Minister tell us what are the criteria for PA to decide on whether a temporary community centre should be a shophouse centre or a void deck centre?

Sir, the preference of the PA is to locate the temporary centre in shophouses because, from experience, we have found that it is rather difficult to use the void deck centres once the PA has vacated them and moved into the modern centres. As far as possible, we would like to locate the temporary centres in shophouses.

The following question stood in the name of Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon - 11. To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry what impact the introduction of the Textile Quota Auction System has on the garment industry.

Question No. 11, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, textile quotas are a scarce national resource. The new allocation sytem aims to distribute them more fairly and more efficiently. Under the new system, 25% of the textile quotas will be tendered out. The balance is still allocated to manufacturers based on past performance, but it is subject to a levy which will be regularly adjusted to reflect the actual tender prices. This year the levy is 0.5%. The Trade Development Board called the first tenders for the 1988 quota on 17th November last year. Some 190 companies submitted a total of more than 4,500 bids for 118 categories. 164 companies or 86% of them succeeded in tendering for at least one category. Of these, 11 companies without past performance record were successful in bidding for 'hot' categories in popular demand. The new quota allocation system will make it easier for new companies without a performance record to enter the business. It will encourage competition in the industry. Quotas will go to the more efficient and competitive companies. The less competitive manufacturers will have an incentive to sell their performance quotas to other manufacturers, to other stronger companies, or to shift to producing items whose quotas are in less demand. We can therefore expect the industry to consolidate itself in the next 2-3 years. The result should be a leaner and more competitive textile industry.

Sir, can I know from the Minister for Trade and Industry how much money was collected from auctioning the textile quotas and, secondly, to ask him what he proposes to do with the funds collected if this is not a revenue-generating exercise.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not have the figures but about $30 million was collected from the tender. The amount is substantial. It accrues to the Trade Development Board. It will be used for trade defence, for promoting our exports, for looking after our interests in America and Japan where it is necessary to obby for support for open trade, for free trade and for Singapore exports, in particular.

Sir, would the new system increase the cost to manufacturers and therefore affect their competitiveness?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, under the new system, the manufacturers will have to pay for quotas which they used to receive for free. In that sense, it will cost them more. But in two senses, it is the right thing to do. Firstly, these quotas are a scarce national resource. They belong to the State. As custodians of these quotas, it would be irresponsible of us to give them away for free. Nobody suggests that we should give manufacturers utilities for free, give them electricity at zero price, or water free, or land rent free. Quotas are just the same. They are scarce, they are valuable, they must be paid for. Secondly, it does not make sense for textile companies to say that quotas are too expensive and are putting them out of business. The quotas are only worth as much as the textile companies can afford and are able to pay. For the whole industry to say it is too expensive is logically impossible, because if that is the price, somebody has been willing to pay and if one company is willing to pay when a second company is not, it is most likely because the first company is better run, more profitable, better able to make use of the quotas, and therefore deserves it. It is the same principle on which we tenderout shophouses, flatted factories. It is a principle which should also be applied here.

asked the Acting Minister for Health what are his Ministry's plans for the site and buildings of the former St Andrew's Orthopaedic Hospital at Tay Lian Teck Road.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the land and buildings of the former St Andrew's Hospital at Tay Lian Teck Road belong to the St Andrew's Mission. With the closure of St Andrew's Hospital, the land and buildings have been returned to the Mission.

Sir, may I ask the Minister whether St. Andrew's Mission would have to get the Ministry's permission if the land and buildings were to be developed into another medical facility?

The answer is no.

asked the Minister for National Development what is the monthly average number of motorists who committed parking offences in Housing and Development Board and Urban Redevelopment Authority carparks, and how many of them were charged in court for not paying up the fines.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, an average of 57,000 and 71,500 notices for parking offences are issued monthly by URA and HDB respectively. Of the 57,000 notices issued by URA, about 2,000 or 3.5% are issued with summons to attend court for not paying up their fines. Of these, about 1,800 pay their fines before being brought to court while the remaining 200 (or 0.35%) are charged in court. For HDB, of the 71,500 notices issued each month, about 3,600 or 5% are issued with summonses to attend court. Of these, about 900 pay their fines before being brought to court while the remaining 2,700 (or 3.8%) are charged in court.

How much money, in terms of fines, are collected each month from these offences?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I regret I do not have the exact quantum of fines collected for the year.

Sir, I just want to ask whether the Minister is happy about the current situation. I would imagine that he is unhappy because there are so many people committing offences but, on the other hand, he should be happy because each month the Ministry is collecting a lot of money in fines.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it would not be correct to say that we are happy because we are collecting a lot of fines. We very much prefer a situation where motorists obey the parking regulations so that there is a minimum need to impose penalties on those who either use invalid coupons or overstay their parking duration. The rules are made not because we want to raise more fines but because it is necessary to benefit the vast majority of law-abiding motorists who dutifully use the correct coupons and park within the limit that they have paid for.

Resolved, 'That a Ministerial Statement be made by the Prime Minister after Item 1 on the Order Paper. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Order for Second Reading read. 11.34 am

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the amendment in this Bill is a simple one. Its objective is to provide for the reproduction of gazetted publications for sale or distribution in Singapore. The amendment demonstrates the Government's positive support for the free flow of information. The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act was amended in 1986 to gazette foreign publications engaging in Singapore's domestic politics. Since then, four such publications had their circulation in Singapore restricted. The gazetted publications claim to be champions of the free flow of information. They allege that by restricting their sale in Singapore, we prevent the free flow of information. Asian Wall Street Journal, for example, offered to distribute the newspaper free of charge to its subscribers. The Government agreed, subject to the exclusion of advertisements. Asian Wall Street Journal turned tail. They pleaded "added cost". The Government went further. We offered to meet part of this marginal cost. Asian Wall Street Journal declined. The truth prevailed. Without advertising revenue, the highfaluting principle of free flow of information turned out to be just empty words, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Sir, FEER (Far Eastern Economic Review) claims that it wants to serve all its readers in Singapore; mark the words "to serve all its readers in Singapore". In practice, what did they do? First, they obtained approval for its appointed distributor to distribute the restricted number of copies. Then they refused to circulate in Singapore at all. And as an afterthought, they offered free copies to Singaporeans on visits overseas. This is a cheap proposal, made in the secure knowledge that few people will take it up. It is even cheaper than the Asian Wall Street Journal's offer of free copies to all Singaporean subscribers. The Government is prepared and ready to make FEER the same offer as it did to Asian Wall Street Journal - circulate in Singapore freely, for free but without advertisement. Now, if FEER is genuine in wanting "to serve all its readers" (to use their words), then it should accept the offer. Sir, these gazetted publications allege that restriction is a ban, that the Government is fearful of their criticisms, that we are fearful of their different points of view. This amendment will nail these lies, once and for all. The Government has stated categorically that we are not against the free flow of information. But, why should we allow the foreign publications which engage in our domestic politics to enjoy the privilege of sales and advertising revenue from their circulation in Singapore, at our expense, at the expense of our stability? Circulation of foreign publications in Singapore is a privilege accorded them, granted to them, by the Government on terms. To give an extreme illustration, Pravda and Renmin Ribao: they are still banned in Singapore. We make no apology for it. But mark this, the Western media with their double standards have not protested this particular ban. They are totally silent. Sir, for Communist publications, gazetting would be totally inadequate. These publications and their supporters and their backers - they are willing even to pay people to read their publications because they promote the Communist cause, regardless of cost. But most Western newspapers and journals which meddle in our domestic affairs - they are subversives of a lesser breed. For them, gazetting is more than adequate. Why? It hurts their profits. Their desire for profits is far greater than their wish toengage in Singapore politics or their desire, their so-called desire, to promote the free flow of information. For them, money talks; not principles, not ideologies. Indeed, the editor who is unable to increase his circulation may find himself put in circulation, looking for a job. That is why restricting their circulation and advertising revenue has proved effective. Sir, the gazetted publications know that how soon the gazetting is lifted depends on how soon they stop engaging in Singapore's domestic politics. See for example, the prompt publication of disputed letters in Time magazine and Asiaweek -almost immediately after they were gazetted. FEER also published Mr James Fu's letter as an advertisement, after they have claimed that the letter was sub-judice and after refusing to publish it in their Letters page. Asian Wall Street Journal, only, has yet to learn to report Singapore objectively and without distortion. They are still slanting their stories on Singapore. They are still tampering with Singapore Government letters. They too will learn, in due course, that each time they do this, they are effectively extending their period of gazetting in Singapore. Sir, let me now go into the details of the Bill. The revised section 17(2) empowers the Minister to grant approval for persons to reproduce a gazetted foreign newspaper, subject to such conditions as he may impose. One of these conditions will obviously be that advertisements will have to be blanked out in the photocopies. The revised section 17(3) stipulates an additional condition; namely, that persons reproducing copies for sale or distribution shall not make any profit, but they may recover their costs of production and services. The revised section 17(5) specifically states that such photocopies will not be an infringement of copyright. The amendment is in the spirit of the Copyright Act which allows photocopies to be made, not for profit, but for personal use and research. The amendment will give all readers in Singapore easy access to the gazetted publications. It applies only to publications declared by the Minister as engaging in domestic politics and are so gazetted. I want to emphasize that the amendment does not affect at all all other publications. Nor does it dilute in any way our commitment to bilateral arrangements with other countries on copyright protection. The gazetted publications had protested against the restriction in the name of free flow of information. Now, if they are genuine in their protestations, these self-acclaimed champions of the free flow of information should welcome this move, for it is a move that epitomizes the very principle that they preach. Sir, after this amendment is passed, Singaporean newsagents should subscribe to the FEER, for example, even though it has been gazetted. They can pop over easily to Johore Baru to collect their free copies from FEER. With approval, they can bring it back to Singapore and make reproductions, make photocopies, for sale. In the process, they will render their patrons a great service. Sir, I would encourage Asian Wall Street Journal to follow the example of FEER, its sister publication. They too can make similar free offers to their subscribers to pick up a free copy when they are on visits outside of Singapore. Then Asian Wall Street Journal can also help in the free flow of information. Other distributors can with approval also obtain copies for reproduction and sale. And if Asian Wall Street Journal and FEER should wish to print copies without advertisements to distribute freely to Singaporean readers, I have no doubt that they also will be given approval. Sir, let me state once again that foreign publications are allowed by the Singapore Government, (I emphasise "allowed by the Singapore Government") to circulate freely in Singapore provided they do not engage in our domestic politics. There are some 3,700 of them in Singapore. We have no trouble whatsoever with them. Only three are restricted in their circulation and this Amendment will make even these three gazetted publications easily available to all Singaporeans. Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Sir, when the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act was amended in 1986 to give the Minister the power to declare any newspaper published outside Singapore to be a newspaper engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore, the reasons were made very clear. Why? The main reason lies in the term "declared foreign newspaper." Singapore is a sovereign, independent nation. Our best interests must be protected against those who choose to be mischievious by engaging in our domestic politics for commercial gain. When the Bill was first set out in 1986, the intention was to give the Minister the powers to restrict the sale of a gazetted foreign newspaper so that a newspaper or magazine will not be able to profit by sensationalising reports or distorting reports on Singapore's domestic affairs. Why restrict and not simply ban the publication? This was to let everyone know that the intention was not to deny the public of information nor that of muzzling the media. What we expect is accurate and responsible reporting. We must not allow others to line their pockets to the detriment of Singapore. What has happened since the amendment of the Bill in 1986? Four publications have been gazetted out of a total of 3,700 foreign publications. They had their circulation restricted. Of these four, Time magazine which was gazetted in October 1986 has been reinstated and the order was revoked in July 1987. The order to gazette the four was due to the fact that they had published articles which contained error or distortion of facts. These publications also refused to publish letters, unedited, from our Government which sought to present Singapore's version. Is this fair play? Is it not "intellectual and press freedom" that each be allowed to present its case, so that the readers can best judge for themselves the truth of the case or the accuracy of an article? Why do we now need to amend the Act to "permit the sale and distribution in Singapore of reproductions of a declared foreign newspaper made with the prior approval of the Minister"? This is because of the decision of the Far Eastern Economic Review to stop its circulation entirely in Singapore. To quote the FEER, it says: 'As the Review is prevented from serving all its Singapore readers, it prefers to serve none.' This has two serious implications for us. (1) It has broken the spirit or intent of the Act in allowing free flow of information while denying the profit motive. (2) It can now claim a ban on the magazine, albeit a self-imposed ban. None of the other three publications gazetted earlier reacted in this way. They abided by the law governing our country. They showed respect for our law. Let it be noted by all that it is the FEER that is obstructing the flow of information, not the Government. It is this House, through this Bill, that will make the free-flow of information available. Is our Government over-reacting or being too sensitive to criticism, some Singaporeans are asking? In an article entitled "A Clash of Values", a veteran Singapore journalist, the ex-Chief Editor of the now defunct Singapore Monitor, Mr Seah Chiang Nee, gave his opinion on the "present state of unhappy relationship between the Singapore Government and a number of Western publications ...". I quote from the article carried in the January 1988 issue of Petir. Mr Seah gave this illustration: 'Several years ago, the Straits Times employed an experienced American Journalist to work in the News Desk to help improve standards. After working briefly, he failed to appear for work one day. There was no word from him. He was not at home. One week passed, then two, and three. The newspaper eventually received a letter from him back in the United States saying he was resigning from his job. He said he could not work for a newspaper which carried government propaganda, referring to its role in helping the Government's anti-littering campaign. The Straits Times had been running messages extolling its readers not to litter. This offended his concept of press freedom and responsibility and he could not, in good conscience, work for such a paper.' We can see from this the difference in value systems. To us, maintaining a high standard of cleanliness is vital both for good health and the tourism industry. Is there anything wrong if the media works willingly with the Government towards achieving a goal that will benefit society? However, to this journalist, it is an issue of "press freedom and responsibility." Mr Seah's other views and the exchange of views between him and the Far Eastern Economic Review have been well documented in Hong Kong's South China Morning Post of January 9th and 20th 1988, and summarised in the Straits Times article of 23rd January 1988. This article carried the caption "heart-transplant journalist returns editor's donation." The "heart-transplant journalist" is Mr Seah, and the editor referred to is Mr Derek Davies, Editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review. What does this episode tell us? It reminds me of the double standards that is sometimes applied to us. We are often accused of being too sensitive to criticism and over-reacting to minor criticisms. Now in this exchange we can see how personal a level differing views can sink into. The Straits Times has quoted Mr Derek Davies as saying, "I'm very glad that Mr Seah has a new heart. But I don't know how he could return me the $500 unless he gave me a piece of his heart." In today's Straits Times Forum page, there is a letter from Mr Derek Davies explaining what he was quoted to have said. Mr Davies has been accorded the right to reply by the Straits Times. The FEER did not accord the Singapore Government the same courtesy. Furthermore, without checking with the Straits Times - this is because several of my colleagues and myself have just returned from the AIPO conference for this morning's sitting - I am quite confident that Mr Davies' reply has been printed unedited. This reinforces my view that double standards do exist. Furthermore, Sir, I am deeply saddened by the closing remark of this morning's letter which smacks of sarcasm. He now says that his "sole concern is that, after the Australian surgery, Mr Seah's new organ is in the right place." I wonder where else does he expect the heart to be. Perhaps the underlying root problem may indeed be, as perceived by Mr Seah, "a clash of values." If this is the case, how can we resolve this? In the article, Mr Seah also mentions about the complaint of the foreign press "about difficulties in persuading Singaporean officials to talk to the international press, which makes it difficult for them to get a balanced story." Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on these two issues. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in summary, I support this amendment because the amendment is consistent with the original intent of the Act. Government has ensured through this amendment that Singapore will remain an Information Centre. Singaporeans, the business community, and expatriates will continue to have access to information. This amendment also serves to remind those who try to circumvent our laws passed in this House that loopholes in the law will be sealed. Consistency and the spirit and intent of the law will always reign supreme.

I am much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me this chance to join in the debate. As I sit there and listen to the Minister and to the Chairman of the GPC, I am sure such similar speeches will follow. I do not know whether we are debating on the Amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Press Act or this session is going to be a continuous attack on the FEER and Mr Derek Davies. An hon. Member: You are going to defend him?

Unfortunately, I am not going to defend the FEER or Mr Derek Davies. But it is unfortunate in the sense that this seems to be the practice of the House in the four walls of this Chamber - we attack this or that person and that poor fellow has got no chance of reply. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister has said that some foreign publications, I believe, - I have got the notes here - are subversives of a lesser breed. Maybe I think we should get an explanation from him. Of course, understandably, if they are Communist publications, then they are subversive. But I do not know how the Asian Wall Street Journal, or the Time, or the Newsweek, or the Far Eastern Economic Review could in any way be said to be subversive. Perhaps the Minister could explain to us. Sir, the issue in this debate, like the earlier amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, is really the freedom of the Press, the free flow of information. According to the Minister, the amendments would facilitate information flow, but I do not agree. If the Government is really sincere in wanting to facilitate the free flow of information by this amendment, then why is there the necessity to include this new section 17(2)? This relevant section reads: 'The Minister ... may refuse to grant or revoke such approval without assigning any reason.' This is my main quarrel with the amendment. The Opposition has enough experience to know in Singapore that the matters that really count, the news that are politically hurtful to the PAP which by themselves do not contravene any defamatory or criminal laws, will be kept away as much as possible from the eyes of the public. Knowing the record of this Government, the Opposition will naturally be skeptical and will question the necessity of the inclusion of this new section 17(2). People will, of course, be unhappy if a decision has been made against them and no reason is forthcoming. We know, of course, when a decision is made by the Minister in regard to news, if they come from other countries than Singapore, like Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, South Korea, then reproduction of those news will most likely be forthcoming. But what about news which are hurtful and damaging to this Government? Will they be forthcoming? I do not think so. The three foreign magazines and one newspaper have been gazetted because they published news that were alleged to have been involved in local politics. The Government has restricted their sale drastically by cutting down their circulation because they were said to be involved in local domestic affairs. The Government, having done that, now attempts to say, "We are not restricting free flow of information." By this act of cutting down the sales from over 9,000 copies in the case of the Far Eastern Economic Review to 500 copies is, of course, an attempt to restrict free flow of information. If restricting drastically the circulation of a magazine is not an act to curb free flow of information, I do not know what is. The less number of persons who have access to news is self-evident that information flows less freely. How can information flow freely if certain news are not readily available? I say that news can never be readily available as long as the Minister has the last say in whether or not to approve the reproduction of copies of gazetted newspapers. Section 17(2) is bad law. This new section gives the Minister the right not to approve or revoke such approval without assigning any reason. This infringes the basic democratic principle of accountability. The Minister need not account to anyone when he makes a decision under that section. He is not required to give reasons. He just says, "No. That's it. You cannot have the approval." Where is the fairness? Where is the justice?

Point of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

Are you giving way?

One question.

Please, you can speak after I have finished.

Dr Tan, resume your seat.

I am only one amongst you. Please have some fairness. If you are interrupted, somebody else can always back you up. I have no back-up. Once the Minister has not given reason, who is to say that he has not abused his powers?

Are you seeking a licence?

This particular section also involves another important issue, ie, the credibility of this Government. Can the people of Singapore believe the Government any more? If the Government is sincere in wanting really to facilitate the free flow of information, why is it that it dare not give reasons when it refuses permission to make reproductions of gazetted newspapers? The best way the Government can make the public believe its action is by giving explanations. When the Government refuses to explain its action, people will surely be tempted to say the Government has something to hide. On the other hand, if the Government has nothing to hide, why is there the fear to explain? If the Government is really genuine about its intentions, I would suggest that we amend this new section 17(2). I propose that we appoint an independent committee comprising professional people, to give it powers to have a final say in whether or not approval may be refused or such approval, having been given, should be revoked. It is not enough for the Minister to tell this House that the intention of the Bill is to facilitate free flow of information. That intention must manifestly be seen, and there is no better manifestation of that intention than to take the powers away from the Minister and vest them in an independent committee to decide whether approval should or should not be refused or an approval be revoked. Under the new section 17(2) the Minister may grant his approval subject to certain conditions. May I perhaps ask the Minister to give us an idea of some of the conditions he has in mind. I would imagine one of the conditions would probably be to limit the number of copies since those copies will be exempted from the provisions of the Copyright Act. One of the complaints of the Government is that when western journalists tend to spread western liberal ideas in Singapore, according to the Government, these ideas are not suited to Singapore's conditions. Perhaps the younger PAP Members have to be reminded that it was the old guards of the PAP, prior to 1959, who were the greatest advocates of liberal ideas. And now there is a complete turnaround of the situation. I am glad the Prime Minister is here and I would like to quote him.

On a point of order.

Mr Chiam, it is a point of order.

He is making an assertion which is manifestly untrue because if he looks at the records of this Assembly before it became a Parliament in 1959, he will see that I supported the ISA and I made no bones about it. I was no free liberal democrat after the western fashion of the word. I knew what Singapore had to face and I spelt out exactly what we would do. He is stating an untruth. The debate took place in April 1958. Look it up.

From what I have read, the Prime Minister, towards 1958, in fact, as he has said, supported the Emergency Regulations. Those days they were called the Emergency Regulations. But before 1958, say, 1957 down, from 1955-57, what was your position in regard to the Emergency Regulations?

In 1955, we had never faced the realities of the Communist challenge. In 1957 or 1958, after 2-3 tumultuous years, we had the courage to change our stand in this House and made it quite clear that we would never revoke it as long as it was necessary either in Malaya or in Singapore.

If my source is wrong, then the Prime Minister should have banned this book long ago. It is called "Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore" by T.J.S. George. [Laughter]. There is nothing to laugh. If the Prime Minister feels that Mr George has been writing a lot of untruths about him then -

Do I have the support of the Member every time somebody utters an untruth that I should ban it because then we can do without the gazetting? We can just ban all these publications.

I will quote Mr George from page 111: 'Almost any speech he made in the Assembly [Mr Prime Minister, that is referring to you] between 1955 and 1959 could go straight into the liberal democrat's bedside bookshelf.' You remember reading that, of course.

I do not read Mr George.

Since you have touched on the Internal Security Act, I will quote him on this point unless, of course, you deny it: 'Examining how governments could fall all too easily into the habit of suppressing the liberty of the individual, Lee said: "First the conscience is attacked by a sense of guilt. You attack only those whom your Special Branch can definitely say are communists. They have no proof except that X told Z who told Alpha who told Beta who told the Special Branch. Then you attack those whom your Special Branch say are actively sympathising with and helping the communists, although they are not communists themselves. Then you attack those whom your Special Branch say, although they are not communists or fellow travellers, yet, by their intransigent opposition to any collaboration with colonialism, they encourage the spirit of revolt and weaken constituted authority and thereby, according to the Special Branch, they are aiding the communists. Then finally, since you have gone that far, you attack all those who oppose you. "... 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 and quiet on the surface. Then an intimidated press - and some sections of the press here do not need intimidation because they have friendly owners - the 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."'

Order. Mr Chiam, are you going to read the whole book?

This is a follow-up from a point which the Prime Minister brought up. I did not intend to read this first half but since he has brought it up I read it. I intend only to go to the second part which is relevant to our debate.

I can see you are straying very far away from the contents of the Bill. Could you be relevant, please?

I will continue, Mr Deputy Speaker: '"... But if we say we believe in democracy, if we say that the fabric of a democratic society is one which allows the free play of ideas, which avoids revolution by violence because revolution by peaceful methods of persuasion is allowed, then in the name of all the gods we have in this country, give that free play a chance to work within the constitutional framework."' Mr Prime Minister, I support every word you said here. I am with you. An hon. Member: He didn't say it. It is George.

Unless he is denying it. No man, I think not even in the English Parliament, can put it as beautifully as you can, Mr Prime Minister, and I really believe it. I think there is no more beautiful way of putting a parliamentary democrat's position than this. Nobody else could have crafted this as well as the Prime Minister of Singapore. But if we are really to believe that by peaceful methods of persuasion we are going to be allowed to shape our society, then why are we in this House today trying to curb the circulation of (we have curbed the circulation of four, but now remaining three) foreign newspapers? An hon. Member: Make more copies available.

Sir, unless of course the Government is saying that the foreign press indulges in subversive activities, and if it can be proven that they are subversive to Singapore, I will support the Government. Surely I will support it. But as I can see, their only sin is that now the Government says they are trying to purvey Western liberal type of ideas in Singapore and we must have Asian ideas. But even this stand of the Government is contradictory. On the one hand, you want to accept a lot of their technology, methods of organization, their creativity, their innovativeness and also, in fact, we have got their political system, ie, the democratic system, here. So on the one hand, we want all these things to come to Singapore, to make Singapore a better place and to go on to the next big step of our development. But on the other hand, the Government says that we must encourage only Asian ideas. Unless the Government can convince me that they can reconcile these two aspects, I will certainly not support this kind of a Bill. I say that unless you can prove to me that the Western press is, in fact, not practising peaceful persuasion, the words of the Prime Minister, -

Can I ask the Member whether he believes the Western correspondent has got the right to participate in our politics? Is it his contention? If so, will he cite me the authority, any convention that we have signed, any declaration in the UN that we have supported to say that the Western correspondent can write and sell his publication in Singapore? It is as simple as that. He is not a participant - that is the clear-cut position of this Government - neither is the Soviet nor the Chinese nor any foreigner, not even our Asean neighbours. They stay out of our politics.

This is the view of the Government that these foreign publications have participated in the -

I have asked him, as a matter of law: are they participants in our domestic debate?

Mr Prime Minister, I do not know whether the Government intends to bring any of these matters to the court to decide.

It is simple. If they are entitled to participate, the Member can bring us to the courts and declare this ultra vires the Constitution.

Is the Prime Minister saying that they are purely participating in local domestic affairs and not, in fact, putting up certain views by peaceful methods? Unless, of course, the Prime Minister is saying that these publications are, in fact, subversive.

I did not say that. No such thing. Mr Deputy Speaker, the proposition is a very simple one.

Mr Chiam, would you allow the Prime Minister to clarify?

The proposition is a simple one. We do not have to prove.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have in this House, whenever the Prime Minister is here -

"He does not put up with frivolity."

- he can stand up any time and just interject another speaker. I think nobody else has this privilege.

Mr Chiam, on the occasions the Prime Minister has interjected, I have noted that you have given way to the Prime Minister. If you are giving way, the Prime Minister then has the Floor.

No. If we are just adopting Standing Orders and taking the norms of debate, then I think the Prime Minister, in the first place, should ask Deputy Speaker whether or not I am giving way. I think this is normal. I do not think he did ask your permission.

Yes. But I have noted you have given way.

Yes. But in any event, I have come to the end of my speech. What I am going to say is that Singapore, if it is going to really progress, let us have, as the Prime Minister said, the peaceful methods of persuasion. And if we really want it, let us have it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act was debated in Parliament in 1986, one of the key principles that is enshrined in the Bill is the free flow of information. After a publication is deemed by the Government to have engaged in domestic politics, its circulation will be drastically reduced when it is gazetted as a declared publication. However, even though its circulation has been reduced, for those who like to have access to the publication for general interest or for research, they can still refer to the copies in the library. Thus, as long as there are sufficient copies in circulation, free flow of information is preserved, contrary to what the Member for Potong Pasir has asserted. Of the four publications gazetted so far, three of them continue to supply the maximum number of copies allowed to their customers. It is obvious that circulation revenue of these copies would hardly cover the expenses of printing and circulating these copies. Yet Time magazine, Asian Wall Street Journal and Asiaweek elect to do so. They do so perhaps to maintain links with their readership while waiting for the eventual removal of the restrictions, as in the case of Time Magazine. Perhaps by doing so, they intend to uphold another principle, that is, to continue to serve their readership. If that were the case, the motive is an honourable one. I for one would give them the benefit of the doubt. Of course, Asian Wall Street Journal carried that principle a little bit too far when it offered its papers for free to Singaporeans provided they were able to maintain their circulation. When the Government agreed to its proposal with the condition that all advertisements be removed, it became very clear that Asian Wall Street Journal's motive was driven more by the need to protect the bottom line than by the principle to serve its readers. I for one was disappointed by the FEER when it decided to stop circulation entirely in Singapore. Its editorial proclaimed that it was "banned". We know, by any definition of the word, one cannot say that the magazine has been banned in Singapore. Why would FEER do this? It is clear that financially the additional 500 copies make no difference one way or the other to the fortune of FEER. Either way the 5% advertisement discount is inevitable, once the restriction order took effect. Perhaps through this action, FEER would like to show the world that it is a magazine of principle, that it is a magazine of character. But to stop circulation entirely is to prevent the access of information. To stop circulation entirely is to stop serving its readers, many of whom might have been subscribers for many, many years. Unilaterally, FEER has caused the cessation of its circulation in Singapore. To project itself as a magazine of principle, I submit, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, FEER has violated a greater principle of service and freedom of information as a journalistic publication. So we can conclude that FEER may not be a magazine that upholds service to its readers as an important principle. But how about the principle of fair and impartial editorship? FEER refused to publish the latest letter from James Fu claiming that the letter was sub judice. But for HK$30,000-odd, they swallowed their pride and principle. For FEER, the publication of the advertisement has not been a cost-free one, just as a non-publication or a publication as a letter would not have been cost-free. FEER must have realized that. What they did is viewed with bad taste in the journalist circle. They quickly offered to donate the money to charity, in this case the Singapore Kidney Foundation, in a belated attempt to repair the damages. Clearly, it is on flimsy ground for, if one stands on sound principles, there is no need to shift. Is FEER a magazine of character? Now, since a publication is an inanimate object, its moral must reflect those of the man behind its editorial policies. So I shall rephrase my question: is the editor of FEER a man of character? I do not know the man personally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, but one learns a lot from the following incident which was reported in the newspapers. A few years ago the editor of the FEER donated HK$500 to help a heart transplant patient who was a fellow journalist. When this journalist recently expressed a viewpoint different from the editor's, the editor said that he might now begin to regret that particular act of charity. Upon learning this, the journalist returned the HK$500. This editor's reaction, as quoted in the South China Morning Post, was, "I don't know how he [meaning the heart transplant patient] could return me the $500 unless he gave me a piece of his heart." The good editor considered that only by returning a piece of the heart could the journalist repay his $500. An hon. Member: Shylock.

Many of us have read Shakespeare. Whenever I read the Merchant of Venice during my student days, I always loathed Shylock for the way he extracted repayment. I was young then. I consoled myself that, despicable though he is, Shylock is only a figment of imagina- tion. I am now wiser. So I would leave my fellow hon. Members to conclude in response to my earlier question. I can only say that next time when this man extends his hand to help, watch out. As the magazine reflects the man behind it, Singaporeans should read FEER in future with a new understanding, a new insight. Bear in mind the man behind those words. An additional 500 copies is a small number; not to circulate these does not hurt FEER any further than what it is now. However, by doing so, FEER completely deprives Singaporeans of the freedom to have access to the magazine. This is truly a regrettable act. In making the copying of a declared magazine by approval of the Minister free from the Copyright Act, this amendment will allow Singaporeans access to declared magazine that enforces a self-imposed ban. This amendment will ensure that free flow of information will continue to be practised in Singapore. Let me conclude by giving my own view on the concept of copyright. There are persons who hold the opinion that copyright is a basic right. Since it is composed of two words, "copy" and "right", so it must be a right. To take away a basic right seems like a very drastic measure. In response, I will ask this question: is copyright a basic right, like a birth-right, or is it a privilege? There are countries in this world where there are no comprehensive copyright laws. So clearly copyright is not a fundamental right. In my opinion, it is a privilege accorded by a country to protect the authors and the artists of their creative work. Like all privileges, it is something the host gives to the honoured guests, in particulars foreign guests. For foreign publications that dabble in Singapore's internal politics, they have forfeited their honoured guest status. Thus it is only logical that such privileges be withdrawn from them. Hence, I consider this amendment does not violate the fundamental principle of copyright. One final remark, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, regarding the operational aspect of this Bill. New section 17 (3) of this Bill stipulates that those who reproduce copies for circulations with the approval of the Minister cannot do it for profit. I would like to find out from the Minister how the Government proposes to monitor such policies. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this amendment.

Sir, I want to thank the two Members of Parliament for their support of the Bill. The Member for Fengshan raised two points that require a reply. First, he asked about the difficulty expressed by the foreign journalists themselves, the difficulty in gaining easy access to civil servants and Ministers and therefore they had greater difficulty in doing their jobs. Sir, Ministers and civil servants are not paid to do the job of foreign journalists. They have to go around and sniff out the information, the news, that they want. Notwithstanding that, I think it must be obvious that the Prime Minister does give interviews to foreign correspondents fairly regularly. One can remember the article in Newsweek sometime back, and very recently that in another Japanese newspaper, Ministers have often, whenever appropriate, spoken to foreign correspondents. They have even gone to the extent of addressing the Foreign Correspondents' Association in Singapore. But I emphasise again, it is not the job of civil servants to be the assistants of foreign correspondents to help them in their job, to make it easy to get information. The Member for Fengshan also touched upon the question of values. Sir, this is not the appropriate forum to go into the question of values. The nub of the problem that the NPPA Amendment seeks to address is really very simple. The foreign publications are concerned with increasing their circulation. It is money that they are talking about. We are concerned with our stability, with the future of Singapore. That is what the whole Bill is all about. Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir went round and round. I just wondered whether he supports the Bill, or he does not. Does he or does he not support the free flow ofinformation? Because he seems very confused. He does not understand how this Bill will make it possible for all Singa- poreans to have easy access to even the gazetted publications. Where is the muzzling of the foreign press? Because they are going to be able to read it. Everybody in Singapore who wants to read the FEER after the Bill has been passed will be able to read it. The Member is obviously trying to give us what he thinks should be a correct form of words or the drafting of the legislation. Sir, the Member during the budget debate gave us an exposition on the law of libel. I am sure he must have thought that it was a brilliant exposition. However, two days later he came back to this House to apologize to the Speaker and Members of the House. We will have to treat his exposition of legal draftsmanship with the same degree of seriousness. Sir, if the Member is familiar with the law of Singapore, he will know that in the drafting of laws this sort of phraseology is used routinely. The purpose is to ensure flexibility so that every time there is a minor change we do not have to come back to this House in order to accommodate that change. Mr Chiam See Tong rose - Dr Yeo Ning Hong remained standing.

Dr Yeo. Dr Yeo Ning Hong resumed his seat.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to clarify one point with the Minister because he has just made a most astounding statement. He says that that piece of legislation is normal, always done that way. Are you saying that does not mean what it says, but it is just done in that way and it is always done that way? Surely a legislation must mean exactly what it means. It is not for flexibility or for convenience or whatever reasons you may give.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are seeing a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. A moment ago the Member for Potong Pasir complained about the Prime Minister not addressing the Deputy Speaker to seek permission, and here we have the Member for Potong Pasir doing exactly the same thing. I think next time before he becomes critical of others, he should take a look at himself. Maybe we should arrange for him to have a mirror in this House. Sir, let us get back to basics. If the Member's Party, the SDP, wishes to apply for a permit to reproduce the FEER, the Asian Wall Street Journal, and all the other gazetted publications, I assure him he will get it. Does he want to do that? My assurance is, he can have it. In fact, I have given the assurance that if the Asian Wall Street Journal and FEER want to print their magazines in Singapore and circulate freely without charge, but without advertisements, I shall arrange for them to be given the approval.

Mr Deputy Speaker, he has -

Dr Yeo, are you giving way?

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask that you advise the Member for Potong Pasir not to interrupt.

All right. Continue with your speech.

Sir, the Member talks about foreign publications indulging in persuasion. Sir, we are not talking about persuasion. We are talking about a systematic undermining of key institutions in Singapore, undermining the credibility of the Government, undermining the credibillity of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, undermining the credibility of the Prime Minister. We are not talking about different points of view. Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir and Members of this House must surely know that if any Singaporean were to comment on the domestic politics of, say, for example, our Asean neighbours, they are not going to be lightly received. They do not even have to be reported in the local papers in these countries. If any Singaporean, including the Member for Potong Pasir, were to engage himself in the domestic politics of our Asean neighbours, there is going to be a mighty row. It is obvious that the domestic politics of a country remains the province of its citizens and its government. Sir, the Member talks about the phraseology in the Bill leading to the Minister not being accountable to anyone. I do not think he understands at all how the mechanism works. The Minister is accountable to Parliament. That is why we are here answering questions, debating. The Member for Potong Pasir can always ask questions anytime. The trouble is that when he asks a question, he does not even turn up for the answer. I am sure he must have left word with the Member for Chong Boon. It is a pity the Member for Chong Boon is not here, otherwise we will ask him whether there is some special arrangement to ask questions on his behalf. Sir, obviously, like Pontius Pilate, the Member for Potong Pasir asks questions without really wanting to hear the answers. Sir, I ask the Member for Potong Pasir categorically: does he or does he not support the free flow of information?

Of course.

He does. Thank you. Does he or does he not support the allegations of the FEER? [ Mr Chiam See Tong interrupted.] Does he or does he not support the Asiaweek magazine when it tampered with the Government's letter without telling the writer and publishing it as if it were a letter from the Government official? Does he support that? [ Mr Chiam See Tong interrupted.] You support it. Sir, does he or does he not support the Asian Wall Street Journal refusing to publish a Government letter claiming falsely that the letter was defamatory? Does he support all this?

Why not? I am not a defendant of the FEER.

You are not a defendant of the FEER. You are not a defendant of any thing because you do not believe in anything at all. You have got no point of view other than being critical of the Government.

I propose something.

I have attempted to make sense out of the speech that you are making and all I have is six to seven isolated points.

Are you going to amend the -

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have just given the Member my views and he has obviously not heard. I am treating the Member for Potong Pasir's exposition of draftsmanship with exactly the same amount of seriousness as I did his exposition on libel law.

We want an independent committee. Do you agree to that?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is no necessity because the law is clear. If the Member had been familiar with the laws of Singapore he would know that this is the standard phraseology used under a variety of circumstances. Sir, I now come to another point which the Member has raised. He talks about the need for us to follow the West. He believes that everything that the West does is good.

Not me. Your leader.

You were expounding that particular point of view a moment ago. Sir, we are looking at societies that have, among their statistics, some of the highest incidence of murder, of mugging, of child abuse, of divorce, of family breakdowns, and the Member for Potong Pasir wants us - he may want to practise a "monkey see, monkey do" approach to doing things. But this is not the way we do things in Singapore.

I did not say that.

This is not the way we do things in Singapore. Sir, we examine carefully cause and effect and before we adopt anything that the West does, we look at it very closely. The Member talks about progress in science and technology and equates it with all this behaviour that the Western media practises. I do not think there is any evidence to support that. Science and technology is not the monopoly of the West. The Japanese are fast catching up and in many areas have overtaken the Western countries, and they do it with a totally different culture, with a totally different approach to life. Very unwise for the Member to believe that a "monkey see, monkey do" approach will solve all the problems of Singapore. Sir, the Member for Bukit Timah raised two points which I would like to touch upon briefly. He asked if the amendment is appropriate as far as the Copyright Act is concerned. Sir, yes, the amendment is in accordance with our Copyright Act which was passed late last year. Sir, this amendment, as I emphasised a moment ago, affects only gazetted publications those declared by the Minister to be engaging in the politics of Singapore. It does not - I emphasize, it does not - affect at all all other publications. It is within the spirit of the law and, as I said earlier on and I repeat, it does not in any way diminish or dilute our commitment to bilateral arrangements for copyright protection. The Member for Bukit Timah also asked about the enforcement of the Act. Sir, the enforcement of the Act will be as with the enforcement of all other Acts. In this particular case, the conditions will be laid down. They will be given to the applicant. They will know what the conditions are. There will be a very hefty penalty which will act as a deterrent. I have no doubt that the deterrent will be sufficiently effective in ensuring that there will be no abuse of this particular piece of legislation.

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. - [Dr Yeo Ning Hong]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order. I suspend the Sitting now and will take the Chair again at 2.00 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.48 pm until 2.00 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.00 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, this statement concerns the investigations leading to the prosecution of Mr Allan Ng Poh Meng. It also concerns certain allegations made by Allan Ng against Mr Tan Boon Teik, the Attorney-General, in connection with these investigations. On 20th July 1987, the President spoke to Mr S. Rajaratnam, Senior Minister, about Allan Ng. Rajaratnam immediately spoke to me about it. I went to see the President that same day. The President told me that Allan Ng, former Deputy Chairman, United Overseas Bank, and Executive Chairman of First City Holdings, was an old friend. He had been detained when he was about to leave Changi Airport on 19th July 1987. Allan Ng claimed that he had been "fixed" (I quote the word "fixed" used by the President) as he had done nothing wrong. The President said Allan Ng attributed this to Mr Wee Cho Yaw, Chairman of the United Overseas Bank and a former employer of Allan Ng, who had influenced his friends (Mr Wee Cho Yaw had influenced his friends) in high positions, Mr Tan Boon Teik, the Attorney-General, among them. (I quote the words used to me.) Allan Ng had also alleged that, despite his complaints to the police, Tan Boon Teik had refused to prosecute Wee Cho Yaw for making nuisance telephone calls to his house. And Allan Ng claimed that when he started civil proceedings against Wee Cho Yaw, the Attorney-General had got Mr Joe Pillay, Managing Director of MAS, to induce him to settle his civil action against Wee Cho Yaw. I immediately called for a report on the circumstances which led to the detention of Allan Ng. The report disclosed that it was the MAS (Monetary Authority of Singapore) which had obtained information which suggested that Allan Ng could have violated certain financial banking regulations in connection with the takeover of Sealion Hotel. The AG's Chambers was consulted and their advice was that there was prima facie evidence of breaches of the law by Allan Ng. This led to investigations by the Commercial Affairs Department and the subsequent detention of Allan Ng at Changi Airport. In the case of the nuisance telephone calls to Allan Ng by Wee Cho Yaw, I rang up the Attorney-General for the facts. On 21st July, Tan Boon Teik sent me a signed note from Mr Tan Teow Yeow, Senior State Counsel in the AG's Chambers, on the police investigations into the nuisance telephone calls received by Allan Ng. Tan Teow Yeow's opinion was that the evidence was questionable and he had advised the police to inform the parties that they could pursue the matter by private summons if they wished. I showed the report from Tan Teow Yeow of the AG's Chambers to the President on 21st July 1987 and informed him of the gist of the report from MAS. It was not the Attorney-General but Mr Yong Pung How, Chairman of the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation, who telephoned Joe Pillay on 4th February 1987 about the nuisance calls by Wee Cho Yaw to Allan Ng. Allan Ng had seen and told Yong Pung How about it on 3rd February 1987. Yong Pung How was concerned that publicity over this petty row would not do any good to the reputation of Singapore bankers. So he telephoned Joe Pillay to ask him to help sort out this quarrel. Yong Pung How sent me his contemporaneous minutes of his conversation with Joe Pillay to confirm this. Joe Pillay has confirmed that it was Yong Pung How who had spoken to him, but that the decision to intervene was (in his own words) his own initiative. Joe Pillay met Wee Cho Yaw on 10th February 1987 and Allan Ng in the morning of 19th February 1987. He arranged a meeting with Wee Cho Yaw and Allan Ng, together with their lawyers, in the afternoon of 19th February 1987 where the matter was settled, as he thought, to the satisfaction of both parties. 1DPM's letter of 17 August 1987 On 17th August 1987, Mr Goh Chok Tong, 1DPM, sent me a letter to recount how his friend, Mr Goh Chee Hiong, was asked by Allan Ng to see him. Goh Chee Hiong used to work with Allan Ng in UOB. Goh Chee Hiong had briefed him (meaning 1DPM) on 31st July 1987 on Wee Cho Yaw's nuisance telephone calls to Allan Ng. On 10th August 1987, Goh Chee Hiong gave him (1DPM) a transcript of a diary of events taken from the diskette of Allan Ng. The transcript, which was initialled by Allan Ng, alleged, among other things, that Tan Boon Teik had bought over 200,000 Textile Corporation shares through City Securities, a stockbroking firm, and made over $200,000 in or before January 1985, that he had bought over 250,000 Sigma Metal shares through the same firm and lost a few hundred thousand dollars in or before November 1985, which was settled by somebody else, and that he owed Fraser & Company, another stockbroking firm, money which he refused to pay. I asked 1DPM on 19th August 1987 to get specific details (this was two days after: one day after I received the letter of 17th, letter was sent on 17th, I received it on the 18th, I replied on the 19th) to get specific details of the sums involved, who paid the debts, and the nature of favours done by the Attorney-General in return for the settlement of these debts so that the CPIB could follow up. 1DPM asked Mr Goh Chee Hiong for them. He did not receive any. On 18th November 1987, Director CPIB wrote that he had received complaints against Tan Boon Teik alleging non-payment of debts. I showed 1DPM the complaints on 19th November 1987. He believed, like me, that they were linked to the complaints made to him by Allan Ng through Goh Chee Hiong. The complaints laid before the CPIB related to events many years ago, some over 14 years ago. Both 1DPM and I felt that it could not have been coincidental that these complaints should surface at this time after Allan Ng's two complaints - the first made to the President and the second to 1DPM. There- fore I instructed the Cabinet Secretary on 20th November 1987 to get CPIB to investigate these allegations together with those in Allan Ng's diskette and to establish the facts. The CPIB has completed its investigations on all the allegations. All the complaints made directly to the CPIB were not substantiated. As for Allan Ng's allegations in his diskette, CPIB did not find any evidence that Tan Boon Teik had owed any money to Fraser & Company which he refused to pay. Thorough investigations of the records of City Securities and its former Chairman confirmed that there were no share transactions as alleged, either Textile Corporation or Sigma Metal. These investigations did not disclose any wrong-doing or improper conduct on the part of the Attorney-General. The allegations were totally unfounded. I am satisfied that: (i) the Attorney-General did not influence Tan Teow Yeow not to prosecute Wee Cho Yaw. Tan Teow Yeow has confirmed this; (ii) the Attorney-General had nothing to do with the settlement of the dispute between Allan Ng and Wee Cho Yaw; and (iii) it was not the Attorney-General who initiated the investigation by the Commercial Affairs Department on Allan Ng which led to his detention at Changi Airport. I am satisfied that the Attorney-General has acted properly in exercising his discretion as Attorney-General. Allan Ng portrayed himself as the victim of a conspiracy in which Wee Cho Yaw had fixed him by manipulating highly placed officials like Tan Boon Teik, Attorney-General, Joe Pillay, Managing Director MAS, Koh Beng Seng, Director MAS, and even Dr Goh Keng Swee, the Deputy Chairman, and Dr Richard Hu, the Chairman of MAS. I have found no conspiracy. Any person who believes that he has been unjustly persecuted through unwarranted investigations has regular and proper ways for redress. But the Government cannot call off properly-instituted investigations just because counter-allega- tions of illegal acts have been made against the Attorney-General. Finally, I am satisfied that the decision to prosecute Allan Ng for insider trading was made andrecommended by Mr Glenn Knight, and that the Attorney-General acted correctly in ordering the prosecution to proceed. Mr Deputy Speaker, this does not mean that the Government has prejudged Allan Ng's guilt or innocence. We leave this matter to the courts. But the Government is satisfied that the prosecution is the result of investigations which have been properly instituted. To sum up: (i) Any complaint of improper use of official power to investigate crime will lead to careful investigations and checking. (ii) Every allegation made against any official of corrupt, illegal or improper conduct or action will be investigated. The fact that the official complained against is the Attorney-General, the highest legal officer in charge of investigations, will not prevent such investigations. The allegations have been investigated. They were unfounded. But, let me add, that if they had been substantiated, the Attorney-General would have had to face the consequences. However, the investigations on Mr AllanNg would have gone on, followed by prosecution if the evidence warrants it. (iii) All those exercising authority must be prepared to have their actions in their official capacity examined, and must stand ready to justify these actions publicly. (iv) Therefore no public officer should feel inhibited by such allegations and rumour mongering from doing his duty.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes past Two o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether there is any plan in the near future to upgrade the recreational facilities along the beach at Sentosa.

A $30 million project to upgrade the beaches and lagoons on Sentosa will begin shortly. When completed, the 3-km long beach on the southern coast of Sentosa will be one of the best in the region. The present beach will be given a massive overhaul. Better quality sand will be laid. A better drainage system will improve circulation in the lagoons. Other improvements will prevent siltation and shoreline erosion. New changing rooms, toilets,beach she refreshment kiosks, will also be built. Sites have also been set aside for a resort hotel, a private beach club, a water theme park, and water sports like windsurfing, pedal boating and canoeing. The surroundings will be extensively landscaped to create a pleasant environment. The project will be undertaken in phases so that the public can continue to use the beaches and lagoons during the works. The first phase will be ready by May 1988, and the entire project should be completed by October 1989.