Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to thank Members for making very thoughtful and helpful suggestions on the Bill and for the general support of its provisions. First, let me take Mr Chew Heng Ching's basic question. Does this Bill signify a change of policy on censorship? I think that is the key question we must ask. Are we tightening or are we loosening? In fact, it is neither. It is not the intention of this Bill to re-calibrate the general policy of censorship in Singapore. This issue we reopen once every 10 years. We had a review in 1981. The last review was by Prof. Tommy Koh in 1992 and, in that review, they went through the full range films, magazines, newspapers, the performing arts. And many Members are not aware that in fact there is quite an elaborate mechanism to help the controllers. Assisting the controllers, we have in fact an Advisory Panel consisting of a large number of individuals drawn from a broad cross-section of our society, men and women, different religions, different age groups, different professions, different marital status in order that for different categories, like for cartoons and for different language publications, we have a group of fair-minded jury men who will advise the controllers on their work, their internal guidelines and these guidelines are reviewed from time to time to adjust to changing mores and to the changing patterns in the industry. There is a provision for appeal to the Minister. In fact, very few appeals come to me. And even when they do come to me, I would always cause it to be referred to a Publications Appeals Committee chaired by Prof. Eddie Kuo. And it is very rarely that I disagree with their recommendations. I am not sure if Members or indeed members of the public are aware of who are in the Publications Appeals Committee and the Advisory Panel. I think I would now ask my officers, in order to reassure members of the public and Members of the House that in fact these decisions are not taken in isolation, to publish a list of all those who are involved and they are long lists consisting of very upright, fair-minded people in the community. The purpose of this Bill is not to review censorship provisions or to change the way we censor books or comics or publications. It is to catch up with multimedia technology, and catching up with multimedia technology is breathtaking. I think all of us, as individuals, find it hard enough, and trying to maintain a certain level of censorship in this day and age with the Internet, with CD-ROMS, with VCDs, is an uphill task. So we have got to adopt a very practical approach in the way we go about doing this. The purist would say why not we start afresh. As Prof. Chin said, how can there be a distinction in the electronic media between film, publication, video and so on. That may be. But frankly, the Internet phenomenon, for instance, which is a very recent phenomenon, has exploded so rapidly that no jurisdiction in the world, no regulatory authority in the world, has been able to fully catch up with it, and the debate is still swirling in all four corners of the earth. So what is our general approach? Our general approach is not to try and clean up the universe and anticipate all problems caused by the electronic media. That is not possible. Our basic philosophical approach is to creep. In other words, where do we start from? We are used to films. And in the old days, a film was a film. It was a simple world. Now films have become electronic. Films are no longer on reels. They are on videos. They are on CDs, VCDs, LCDs and what have you. So what we have tried to do is to creep from various acts into the electronic media. Recently, we updated the Singapore Broadcasting Act to take into account some of the new multimedia. We have the Newspaper and Publishing Act which also creeps into the electronic media. We have the Films Act which creeps in the same direction. We have the Undesirable Publications Act today which also tries to creep in that direction. Yes, in the pure world of cyberspace, they all converge. But in the real world, it will take some time before they converge and it will take some time before our wisdom catches up with the challenges posed to us by this new technology. So it is in that spirit that I table this Bill to you for your support and approval, not to ask for a change of policy on censorship, but please, to allow me to amend the law so that we keep up with the technology, so that we can maintain as best we can the level of censorship that we are used to and which our community is comfortable with. Of course, from time to time, our standards will change and shift. Lady Chatterley's Lover, once upon a time, shocked the community. Today, it is a subject of historical study. So we move on. Every 10 years, perhaps we take a step back. We appoint an ecumenical council, gather all the Bishops together and say, "Okay, let us make new pronouncements." But we cannot be doing this year by year. In the meantime, we have a system which has worked well, which is practical in its administrative simplicity, which has served us well. And why do I say that? Because so few appeals in the end come up to me, which is a sure sign that, by and large, Singaporeans are quite comfortable with the way the present system is operating. Mr Chew Heng Ching asked whether this Bill will place additional burdens on Internet Service Providers (ISPs). In fact, ISPs are regulated in detail under the Singapore Broadcasting Act and they are not required to blank out sites unless instructed to do so by the Singapore Broadcasting Authority. We allow them to pass through websites, but there could be a conflict with this particular Bill. We will study this in greater detail and if there is a need to, I will, by special exemption, exclude Internet Service Providers from the provisions of this Bill. On the question of what is "obscene" and what is "objectionable", Dr Toh See Kiat proposed a form of words. Mr Jeyaretnam takes objection to the existing definition of "objectionable". We can argue till the cows come home. We will never agree as to what constitutes "objectionable" and what constitutes "obscenity". Even we ourselves in different settings and on different days may hold different views. It depends so much on the context, on the mood, on the exigencies of the day. It is a futile exercise to try to codify so precisely that a computer can interpret it. It is not possible. In the end, it is a judgment by human beings, for it is quintessentially a human matter. And for this reason, we have established committees of jurymen who advise us and, in the main, we will go by their advice. And we accept that, from time to time, as members in the committees change, as the public mood changes, their views will also change and we creep along. I think that is the wisest approach to take. It is the method which will set us most at ease. If we as parents, as teachers, are uncomfortable, then we can have a debate in this House. We can write letters to the press. We can post messages to the various regulatory authorities. We can write to the Minister. We can see MPs. And all these things will be taken into account, as they have been sent to me from time to time, and then incremental changes are made. There is no need for dramatic moves or gestures. What we have inherited has served us well. Let us just modify it, tinker with it at the margins and move along. This is not the time for us to make a major review of censorship policies in Singapore. Various MPs have asked whether there are provisions to allow book importers to submit in advance samples of books, magazines or comics which they hope to import, so that they will not be caught afoul of the law. In fact, this is already done. This is already the practice. There already exists a close working relationship between the controllers and importers. They are called down for briefings regularly. We show them samples of what is at the margin, of what is acceptable and what is not. When they submit samples, administratively, within two weeks, a reply goes back to them. We will even allow submissions made in manuscript so that we can respond quickly. Our idea is not to place an additional hurdle on their trade, but to facilitate their work. This is not a problem. Whether our fees are excessive, no. They are just to cover administrative costs. Mr Shriniwas Rai asked whether it is possible to make objectionable language an explicit provision in the Bill. This is not necessary because in our determination of what should be prohibited, of what is obscene and objectionable, language is an integral part of the determination process. You cannot, when you are looking at the CD, video, reading a book, magazine or comic take the language out of it. The language is an integral part of it. It is part of the context and will always be taken into account. So I am more than happy to make this assurance to Mr Shriniwas Rai and to my colleagues in the House. Yes, it is certainly not our intention to tighten our standards so as to make it more difficult for artists and creative individuals to explore new possibilities. Are there checks against abuses? I have already explained earlier that every controller has a panel to advise him. Under the law, you can appeal to the Minister, and the Minister will first cause that appeal to be run through the advisory panel before he makes a final decision. Mr Simon Tay asked for consistent interpretation of the word "obscene" under this Bill and as it is written in the Penal Code. I am not a legal expert but the lawyers tell me that they are entirely consistent with the common law interpretation of what is obscene, and we go by it. And certainly in the implementation, there is no desire to have inconsistency between these two laws. I am sympathetic to Mr Tay's call for the process of determining what is objectionable and what is obscene to be made somewhat more formal. I think for a start I am not sure if it is already made known to members of the public, but the lists of members in the various panels and committees are freely available this evening, I will ask my officers to release them to the media, so that we know who are the individuals who are setting standards for us. Mr Tay also asked whether we could provide the lists of materials which are considered objectionable. These lists are made known to the trade and we make them freely available to the public. I will certainly consider posting them on the Internet as well. What is gazetted is gazetted. So that is clearly available in the public domain. What is objectionable is often not possible to determine beforehand. Take, for example, Playboy. We all know what Playboy is. So that is gazetted. It is banned. But there are any number of obscene magazines that are far worse than Playboy, which are not banned, because we have not come across them yet. We do not know what the titles are. So they are roughly classified under objectionable materials. By definition, it is not possible for us to list all objectionable materials. They are listed as a class of materials. But what we have already objected to, we can certainly list them and that list should certainly be made public. Prof. Chin Tet Yung was concerned whether the evidence placed before a controller is open ended or whether there is a certain due process which allows the importer or the person who is disadvantaged to challenge it or to make appeals. I have already explained that the controller does not make the decision on his own. He is guided by internal guidelines and, in marginal cases, by committees of jurymen. And there is provision for appeal and I am further guided by a committee of appeal. Prof. Chin was also concerned about the Films (Amendment) Bill which has been postponed to the next sitting of Parliament. He reads into that Bill a special provision for child pornography and he asked why there is no special provision for child pornography in the Undesirable Publications Act. In fact, there is no special provision for child pornography in the Films Act about which we will have a debate later. The provision in that Bill is to provide special penalties for those who make use of children either to assist in the making of a film or in the distribution of a film which we consider to be objectionable. It does not cover the use of children acting in pornographic films. In fact, in both Acts, there is no intention to make a special definition of "child pornography". Pornography is pornography. It varies in gravity. It does not mean that just because it is child pornography, it must be worse than all other categories. You can find some really depraved materials involving incest, bestiality, the whole range which afflicts the human condition. We have not tried to identify these special categories either in the UPA or in the Films Act. Administratively, what we do is to communicate our concerns to the prosecutors. They would take the depravity of the pornographic material into account and I am sure the judges too will take this into account in their judgments and in the penalties that they mete out. Whether we should abolish the distinction between films, publications and broadcast, I have already explained earlier that while there may be a case for this in the electronic multimedia, in the practical world, we start from where we are and the problems that we face today, even though we are quite sure that in the future, the electronic media will be a source of many of the problems. What I envisage is that, from time to time, our various Acts will have to be updated and maybe at some point, they may have to be fused. But this must take place slowly and through a process of evolution. It is very difficult to attempt a comprehensive omnibus Bill encompassing all aspects. Dr Toh See Kiat asked whether e-mails and faxes are covered under publications. Yes, they are. And if they are broadcast, then they are also covered under the Singapore Broadcasting Act. Dr Toh also asked whether the Act covers Internet publications for which it is difficult to decide whether they are in intermediate form or final form. On electronic magazines or e-zines, they do. If you read the words carefully, under the various limbs, and under the various modes of transmission, they cover the whole gamut. But if there is a need to make further clarifications later, because the technology keeps on springing up new surprises, then we will make the necessary amendments later. But for the time being, there is no need to. On Dr Toh's question as to why there is a difference in the definition of "supply" here and in the Films Act, that is because the intrinsic media, as they are now, are different. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe I have covered all the points raised by Members. I would just like to make one further point by way of conclusion that, however hard we try, censorship will not seal us hermetically from the world outside. We know the challenges which the Internet poses to us and to the young. But there is also the postal service where you can put things in brown paper envelopes. There are fax machines and there is e-mail. In the end, what we are trying to do is to distinguish between different configurations of bits and bytes and say, "This configuration I disallow." It is not an easy task. It can only become more difficult in the future. But what we can do is from time to time to take certain symbolic stands to affirm what is objectionable, not because we can object completely to their existence, but to make a point to ourselves and to the young that we look up to certain standards and we do not try to legitimise everything which we are not able to control. That really underlies the philosophy of all our various attempts at censoring publications and films in Singapore.