ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR - 1ST APRIL, 1993 TO 31ST MARCH, 1994
Sir, yesterday, in my answer to Mr Robert Chua's question about satellite dishes, I gave two reasons why we do not allow such dishes for households. First, control; second, access rights. There is a third reason which is that there will then be a proliferation of dishes on our rooftops pointing in different directions at different satellites. It makes much more sense for us in Singapore to lay a cable network for our whole island and this can easily be done in 5-7 years. We are a compact city. The ducts have already been dug by Telecom and we can either use Telecom's optical fibres or lay new fibres in the ducts which are already there. SBC and Telecom engaged a cable consultant last year. The consultant has briefed both Mr Mah Bow Tan and myself. They told us that it is entirely feasible. Every household can easily have access to over 30 to 100 TV channels. In America where cable TV is readily available and, in some cities, already 100 channels, few homes bother to install satellite dishes. If we have a cable network in Singapore, satellite dishes will also not be worth the trouble. In an emergency, this will give us a chance also to reach out to everyone. For example, if the SAF needs to mobilise reservists, then the green man can flash on all the channels. Cable will also allow us to keep out the extremes of pornography and the broadcasts which are incendiary. But will we have time to watch so many channels? What will happen? Will TV increasingly shift from broadcasting to narrow casting as the marginal cost of a channel becomes much lower? TV channels will become more specialised and more targeted. There are sociological implications we have to think through. TV programmes will no longer be a basis for common experience. It will no longer be a common stage for the whole community. One day, if you ask someone, "Have you watched TV last night?" that will be a nonsensical question because which channel are you talking about. It is like asking someone whether he read the book without identifying the title of the book. But the benefits are enormous. We will become a much more information and knowledge-intensive society. We will be able to allow the various foreign communities in Singapore to watch their own television channel from Japan, Germany, France and so on. This will help consolidate our position as a hub city for international business. To attract the talent of the world to come to Singapore, we have to cater to their needs. Whatever the problems, there is no going back. Whether by satellite, by terrestrial broadcast from Malaysia or Indonesia or by cable, SBC has no choice but to compete regionally and internationally. To answer Mr Robert Chua, yes, we will have to broadcast by satellite. It is a matter of time and business calculation. This is why I have been pushing for the privatisation of SBC by the end of next year. We simply have to become more competitive. If we do not swim, we will sink. There is no escaping this choice. Channels 5 and 8 will be spun off into one company, Channel 12 into another, Radio into a third, and so on. We will have to strengthen the channel image of each company so that when there are many channels available they can hold their own. 12.45 pm We may even have to reshuffle the broadcast languages so that each channel will have a stronger identity. And there is no escaping the logic of competition and the need to watch ratings. If we do nothing, we will become like Indian television which has been so careful with regulations that it has become virtually irrelevant. And so you find in India today, Star Television, being watched all over, all six channels, including Hindi channels. I do not know why the Indian government has allowed this, because if they wanted to control, I am sure the Indian civil service would have found some way to regulate. But they have chosen not to control and I suspect the reason is that the present government has decided to let TV in, in order to break the mindset of over 800 million people, because they are embarked on this course of reform without which India would be left far behind by other countries. By itself, competition will bring down standards and lead to more sex and more violence. Therefore, a good regulatory framework is very necessary. When SBC is privatised, a new statutory board will be formed to perform this function. We will have to ensure minimum hours of public service broadcast, news, current affairs, documentaries, minority programmes, children's programmes and so on. And we will do this with a combination of licensing fees and by direct State subventions. Licence fees and State subsidies will go to the statutory board for allocation to the different channels. And we must also support local productions so that we are not only importers of programmes, we are also exporters. But even in the best situation, we can never hope to produce more than a fraction of all the programmes that we broadcast. Locally-produced serials have been a tremendous success. We are now exporting them all over the world. I have seen SBC Chinese serials in Vancouver. I have seen them in Islamabad. I have even seen them in Urumqi in Xinjiang. We have come a long way. Without Hong Kong talent, we would not have been able to achieve this. I hear many criticisms of Hong Kong producers and I understand the reasons for these criticisms. But I think we must give credit where credit is due. SBC is going into English dramas. We had our first feature a few days ago. It was not bad. There is promise. And I hope that in 5-10 years our English dramas will reach the standard of our Chinese dramas. Let me now turn to the issue of censorship. I spent some time explaining the challenges confronting television in Singapore because that provides the context, the background, behind SBC's drive to experiment and to try new things. Sometimes they make mistakes which I expect them to. If they do not make mistakes, that means they have stopped trying and that is no good. We become like Indian television. But every time they make mistakes, we must inform them. Then they will adjust, pull back and improve. SBC has to strike a balance between the desire to entertain and the need to also inform and educate. I saw parts of "Angel of Vengeance" when I came back from India and I felt uncomfortable which was why when Prof. Jayakumar mentioned it to me, I immediately proposed that we set up a Police/SBC Committee. And I was relieved when I spoke to the General Manager of SBC to learn that he was also unhappy and even before I raised the matter with him, he had already raised the matter with his staff in order that they make adjustments and corrections. Yes, I know some people say, "Look, there is no clear nexus between TV violence and crime." But if there is no clear nexus, we must always err on the side of safety. Of all the mediums, we are strictest with television because it goes right into the living room. The Government accepted the recommendation of the Censorship Review Committee that TV be censored more strictly than cinemas. In September, I asked the Chairman of SBC, Dr Cheong Choong Kong, to do an independent audit of SBC's censorship standards. He, in turn, persuaded Mr Hsuan Owyang, who is the Chairman of our Board of Film Appeals, to be the Chairman of the TV censorship panel. The other members were Mr Chua Gim Siong, Prof. Eddie Kuo, Mr Ronald Lim, Mr Arun Mahizhnan and Mr Suhaimi Salleh. They are all not from SBC. So they could give an independent perspective. And they are people known to have conservative views which was why they were chosen. Let me quote a few passages from their report. They said: 'The panel agreed that stricter censorship involving morality should be applied to local productions. The impact of local productions is expected to be greater as viewers can easily identify with them.' For example, it is one thing seeing violence by Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger, but it is quite another to see violence by Zoe Tay and Li Nanxing, especially in Bedok or Toa Payoh. There is an immediacy which is not there when we watch Hollywood or even Hong Kong. `The panel was also satisfied with the level of censorship applied to the treatment of violence in programmes. A few exceptions were noted such as excessive violence in some action dramas and movies.' It maintained that: 'the level of violence in programmes should continue to be kept low as the cumulative effect of violence on TV is not fully known.' The panel advised in the end that: 'in managing the censorship process, SBC should be conscious of its own social responsibility as well as prevailing public expectations. Thus, liberalisation must be done in a careful and gradual manner. However, it cautioned against reverting to an over conservative stance in view of the advances in technology and changing social norms.' I have asked SBC to release the report. I disagree with Mr Peter Sung that each time the limit of censorship is pushed, we extend the limits. That is not true at all. We are policing the limits all the time. On homosexual scenes in "Breaking Point", we asked SBC to pull back last year. On violence, we are asking SBC to pull back now. It is to police the same limits that MITA banned the book Harlots and the latest issue of the magazine Marie Claire. Cosmopolitan wanted to bring in a special edition for Singapore. They say, "Don't look at the American, British or Australian editions. Look at the South African edition which is more conservative." So we took a look but we found it to be excessive. And, in fact, over the last few months, some issues of the South African Cosmopolitan have been banned by the South African government. So we are not rushing at all. They can wait. It is not true what Mr Peter Sung said that school girls can legally view R(A) videos like "The Lover". This is against the law. R(A) films can only be screened in approved cinemas and duplication is not allowed. It is a punishable offence. I think Dr Vasoo must have been misled by the advertisements he sees in the newspapers. R(A) films are a small proportion of all the films shown, maybe one in eight, one in 10, and they are allowed to be screened only in licensed cinemas and none of these are in HDB estates. Both Mr Hsuan Owyang's TV Censorship Panel and Prof. Tommy Koh's Censorship Review Committee (CRC) did sterling work. Censorship is a very subjective matter. No two persons will agree entirely. The CRC members who covered a wide span, including religious leaders, started with very diverse views but were able in the end to produce a consensus report which was balanced and comprehensive. And I think we see widespread approval. I was therefore quite surprised by the harsh criticism of the CRC by Mr Peh Chin Hua and some others. Let me clarify a few points. The CRC recommended NC16 not as a relaxation but as a tightening. It was precisely Dr Vasoo's concerns that they wanted to address, that parents might not be around to guide their children, and this was why they suggested that some PG films be banned for children below 16. And this is what NC16 is about, not a relaxation but a tightening. The CRC cannot be held responsible for the publication of Action for AIDS. It is true that one of the issues was unnecessarily explicit in recommending the use of condoms. In fact, it was my Minister of State, Dr Ker Sin Tze, who pointed it out to MITA officials who then immediately called up the publishers to tell them to stop circulating it to the schools. The other day I asked Mr Yeo Cheow Tong about this organisation Action for AIDS (ASA). Is it a serious organisation? Mr Yeo told me that they are doing good work. They reach out to groups which could not otherwise be reached. If the ASA takes too moralistic a stand, they will not reach out to these groups. And God knows that AIDS is a very serious problem that we have to address. But, of course, we must at the same time not allow publicity on AIDS to go too far, which is why we have not allowed Chris Ho's music video "Safe Sex" which claims to be sex education with respect to AIDS. But I am very heartened by the principled position taken by Mr Peter Sung, Mr Peh Chin Hua, Dr Vasoo and Mr Goh Choon Kang. They are talking not only about censorship, they are talking about morals in society. It is important to take a stand and to distinguish between right and wrong, and censorship is only a part of the problem. Technology is making censorship harder and harder to enforce. Despite all of Government's efforts, we can only stop a part of the traffic in pornography. We must not think that just because we bury our heads in the sand and we see nothing ourselves that others see nothing and nothing is happening. We can check magazines and books, but we will need an army of censors to vet all videos, CDs and software tapes. Any copies smuggled in can be easily replicated. The machines are readily available. And with a Handycam, you can produce your own videos. With electronic bulletin boards today, you can dial up IDD directly and get your pornography flicks from America or Europe. These things are brought about by technology and technology has not yet given us a way to bring about foolproof controls. What we can do is to crack down and crack down hard on distributors. It is not practical to try to catch all individual offenders. In fact, we are looking at new legislation to broaden the definition of "distribution" and to increase the penalties so that it is not worth the while for those who want to make money to make money this way. Censorship is important because it establishes the standards a society sets for itself. It is a signal that we send to everyone. But censorship is never enough. And sometimes you do not need censorship. If you look at Chinese families in the Chinatowns in America, mostly in red light areas, or Indian families living in depressed areas of Britain, surrounded by drugs and violence, their children see what is happening, but they grow up, sturdy and upright. Why is this? It is because of the family, is it not? And that is the critical factor. There was an article in Britain recently about an Indian family in a poor part of London. They run a small shop. They caught English kids stealing. They informed the parents. The parents, instead of whacking the kids, were not happy that they were told. That is the trouble, is it not, when the family abdicates its responsibility to educate the next generation. The family plays a critical role. It is right that Singapore should be stricter than most other cities in Asia even though Singaporeans travel extensively. It is right that when we come back to Singapore we take off our shoes and we put on slippers because Singapore is home. But we must not delude ourselves into thinking that while we can keep out the mud, we can make Singapore a germ-free environment. Singapore cannot be a germ-free environment. What we need is to build up our own immune system and have occasional inoculations. What is decisive are the values we impart in our families, our schools and our civic institutions. 1.00 pm I agree with Mr Peter Sung and Dr Wang Kai Yuen that we should learn from the mistakes of the West. In a speech earlier this year, Alexander Solzhenitsyn said, very sadly, that the West has been "undergoing an erosion, an obscuring of high moral and ethical standards. The spiritual axis of life has gone dim." The line between right and wrong is being blurred in the West. All lifestyle choices become equally illegitimate. As the Christian says, that is Satan's greatest triumph, when people stop making distinctions between right and wrong. I felt uncomfortable when an AFA activist suggested to me, "Look, do not call prostitutes "prostitutes". That is too judgmental. Call them "sex workers"". I found that troubling. I was very troubled when after we banned Marie Claire, the publisher told the press, "Look. We are only reporting. We take no position one way or the other." But that is the point. I think as individuals, as organisations, we should take a stand. It is because we take a stand that we maintain the immune system in our body politic. In yesterday's Asian Wall Street Journal, William Bennett, who used to be President Reagan's Education Secretary from 1985-1988, contributed a very dismal piece on America's moral decline. I think it is worth my while quoting a few passages because it is part of a debate between East and West. He said, over the last 30 years: `there has been a 560% increase in violent crime; a 419% increase in illegitimate births; a quadrupling in divorce rates; a tripling of the percentage of children living in single-parent homes; more than a 200% increase in the teenage suicide rate; and a drop of almost 80 points in Scholastic Aptitude Test scores.' He said that: `America's cultural decline is evidence of a shift in the public's attitudes and beliefs. .... American society now places less value than before on what it owes to others as a matter of moral obligations; less value on sacrifice as a moral good; less value on social conformity and respectability; and less value on correctness and restraint in matters of physical pleasure and sexuality. The American social and civic institutions - families, churches, schools, neighbourhoods and civic associations - have traditionally taken on the responsibility of providing children with love, order, and discipline - of teaching self-control, compassion, tolerance, civility, honesty, and respect for authority. Government, even at its best, can never be more than an auxiliary in the development of character.' I think it should be against this perspective that we see the whole issue of censorship. As Tan Tarn How wrote in the Straits Times recently, we have been deluged with American values. Tan Tarn How thinks that we cannot fight the trend. I think he is wrong. He sees the tidal wave, but he does not see the tidal shift. The values which the West now holds are not the values which created modern Western civilisation. The Calvinist values - strong families, thrift, hard work, education, living for others. In an ironic twist of history, it is now the East which upholds these values. And as East Asia becomes the economic centre of the world, East Asian influence in the world, East Asian methods of business organisation, of social organisation, will spread its influence in the world. If we hold firm, I am confident the tide will turn as we enter the next millennium. Let me now turn to Mr Chiam See Tong's proposal for more newspapers in Singapore. We have 11 local and over 30 major foreign newspapers circulating here. Whether there should be more is not for MITA to decide. It is for investors to decide. MITA does not place a limit on the number of newspapers. We also have political newspapers like the SDP's Demokrat, and the Workers' Party's Hammer. I notice that the Demokrat appears infrequently, but that is Mr Chiam's decision. The Hammer appears more frequently. A few Sunday's ago, my wife came back from the market, she brought me a copy of the Hammer, which costs 40 cents. I went through it. I was very sad to find that they decided to extract articles written by foreigners against Singapore, and reprinted in the Hammer. In other words, if they have criticisms against the Government, why do they not find their own writers? Is there such a poverty of ideas and a paucity of writers that you have to use others to be a surrogate? Or do we still have this servile mentality that what the white man says must be right? Mr Chiam blames the newspapers for the SDP's dismal performance in the last by-election. First, he blamed dialects. Now he blames newspapers. I do not believe that the voters in Marine Parade GRC lacked information in that very private moment when they went to the polling booth. I find it very strange that Mr Chiam considers the Straits Times a PAP newspaper, when it prints all these long rambling letters from the SDP. And despite the SDP shifting its position each time its arguments are punctured, still the Straits Times prints these letters. It is for the Straits Times to decide. A few weeks ago, the Sunday Times printed and gave colour coverage to a rather mediocre wall painting in Hougang. Some of our PAP MPs got excited and grumbled to me that the Sunday Times is pro-Opposition. I think that is also not true. Bertha Hansen and Sumiko Tan write all these long-winded pieces about the PAP Youth Wing. I happen to be the Chairman of the Youth Wing. So are they pro-PAP? They criticised me. Of course, I will give them a proper response in due course. But in the meantime, they write what they want. No, the newspapers are neither pro-PAP nor pro-Opposition. They are pro-Singapore. That is what is important, they are pro-Singapore. Take GST, for example. It is a very complicated subject. Despite all the attempts to explain it, New Paper did a survey the other day, a large number of Singaporeans have not even heard of it, much less understand its many intricacies, or maybe they are distracted by Star Search. But that is the point. It is not easy to explain complicated social policies which are good for Singapore. The question is: is GST good for Singapore? It is. Then let us do our best to explain it so that there is maximum light and minimum confusion. It is pathetic the debate that went on in Australia. Keating supported it when he was Treasury Secretary. But because Hewson supported it, so he fought it. Now they are not going to have GST for many years, and who suffers? It will be the Australian people. More and more I am convinced that our newspapers are an important factor in Singapore's success and more and more I am convinced, looking at Britain and America, that the newspapers are an important reason for the decline of Anglo-Saxon societies. On the side of SPH, we should be glad that we have a strong organisation which is a national flagship. SPH is not big. SPH is minuscule compared to Time Warner, or Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation or the Yomiuri Shimbun or Fuji Sankei. If we are to have a chance in international competition, it is better that SPH be big. This was Mr Chia Shi Teck's argument in an earlier debate. With SPH, we have a chance, and SPH gives Singapore a voice beyond its shore. On the point raised by Dr Vasoo on heritage, our basic approach is a simple one. It is unity in diversity. If we try to impose unity by curbing diversity, there will be trouble. This is not a light-hearted matter. Two nights ago, I hosted a dinner for the Sri Lanka Minister for Communications. We were talking about the Elam Separatist Movement. I told him that when I visited Madras, I called on the Chief Minister, and she looked very bulky. I did not know why. When I came back I found out that she was wearing a bullet-proof jacket inside. Because she cracked down on the Tigers and they are gunning for her. She is now category one risk in India. But how did it all happen? According to this Minister, Dr Ratnasinghe, it started in 1956 when they decided to impose Singhala as a sole language and to impose Singhalese as the dominant culture in Sri Lanka. That started it. He recalled the prophetic words of a very brilliant Marxist Member of Parliament at that time, Dr Colwyn d'Silva who said, "We have a choice. One language two nations, or one nation two languages." There is a lesson for us. If we want to be one people, one nation, one Singapore, we must have diversity. If we say no diversity, there will be no one people, one nation, one Singapore. The reality is a paradox. That is why we allow and we encourage, to some extent, diversity in Singapore. It is also an economic asset because it gives us links to all parts of the world. In Singapore we do not want any Chinese, any Malay, any Eurasian, any Indian to feel that there is a contradiction between his ethnic identity and his being a Singaporean. That is our multi-cultural ideal. When PM Goh reopened the National Museum Building a few years ago, he encouraged the different communities in Singapore to establish their own heritage centres. Last year, I announced that the Chinese Federation of Clans was considering establishing a Chinese Cultural Centre at the old Nanyang University Administration Block. This year, I am happy to disclose that for the Malay Heritage Centre, a working group has been formed under the chairmanship of Mr Ridzwan Dzafir. The Committee is considering the old Istana Building at Kampong Glam. I hear that URA looks upon the proposal favourably. For all four communities, the Government will help provide buildings at nominal rentals and contribute to the endowment funds for the operation of these centres, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, and up to a limit of $5 million for the Chinese, $2 million for the Malays, $1 million for the Indians, $1/4 million for the Eurasians. These centres will complement the effort of the National Museum to establish a Museum of Singaporean History and a Museum of Asian Civilisations. The People's Museum will then become unnecessary. On the dispute between cultural groups, Dr Vasoo, maybe he was being polite, was very vague. If he meant back-biting among artists, the NAC will do all it can to mediate. But it is in the nature of artists to be critical of each other.