ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE - FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1999 TO 31ST MARCH, 2000
Sir, Mr Chew Heng Ching spoke of the competition posed by SCV and the foreign broadcasters to our local TV stations. I notice that Mr Low Thia Khiang took a diferring position. Our local broadcasters are keenly aware of the competition. In fact, we saw it coming, which was why we forced the corporatisation of SBC, preparing it for long-term future privatisation. We knew we have to compete in a fierce environment. So TCS and STV 12 gave emphasis to local programming and I am glad to report to this House that so far, Channels 5, 8 and Prime 12 have been able to maintain their dominant anchor positions in the minds of Singaporeans. Many Singaporeans who are cabled up tell me that even though they have 30 or 40 channels, somehow they still find most attracted to our English, Chinese, Malay programming, and to a lesser extent, our Indian programming. I think that is a good sign. They are, by no means, there yet. They have got to keep plugging away and make sure that they maintain those anchor positions because that is crucial to the preservation of our identity as Singaporeans. Unfortunately, Malay and Tamil broadcastings clash and compete for prime time on Prime 12. And because of this, MITA has decided that by the end of this year, we will separate Malay programming out to a separate channel. STV 12 will set up a separate Malay channel so that Malay and Indian programming will no longer have to compete for prime slots as they now do. Malay programming will remain on Prime 12, and its hours will increase from 36.5 hours per week to 43.5 hours. We would then move Indian programming to a new channel which will enjoy an additional 5.5 hours per week of prime time. This will go some way towards answering some of Mr Rai's concerns. As to whether we can pump more public monies, which are licence fees plus the 15% grant from the Finance Ministry to Indian programming, I do not think we can justify it because this is really a zero sum game. More money for Indian programming means less money for Malay programming or Chinese programming and already Indian programming on television and radio receives a disaproportionate share of public funds. Our TV stations have also gone into new multimedia platforms like Internet and exploring the early introduction of digital television. Their websites are very popular and accessed by Singaporeans and foreigners all over the world. TCS and STV 12 are committed to recruiting the best broadcasting professionals from around the world. Our TV networks will continue with these strategies to remain competitive. Singapore International Media, which is a holding company, is now reviewing its organisational structure to see how it can better position our TV stations for an even more competitive environment. In answer to Mr Chew Heng Ching, on the concerns which Mr Low said should not exist, I agree with Mr Chew that we must be watchful that the proliferation of foreign channels does not prevent us from developing our own identity. When we look at the way the foreign channels have become part of the domestic politics in Malaysia and Indonesia, I think we should worry for ourselves. If we are not careful, foreign broadcasters, like foreign newspapers, can undermine some of our social and other policies, for example, our advertising standards, our anti-smoking campaign and even our censorship norms. A few may even be tempted to interfere in Singapore's domestic politics, especially before a general election. This is why we have always insisted on the Government's right of reply for newspapers and broadcasters which target Singaporeans. But we are a media and broadcasting hub and we are marketing ourselves to be such a hub, and in recent years, many international broadcasters have located here. Therefore, we should impose minimal conditions on transmissions out of Singapore because it is not for us to impose our standards on other people. However, for transmissions which are relayed to Singapore households, such as those channels which are now carried by SCV, and later by many other service providers as well, we should require of them the same standards as we impose on local broadcasters. For example, if you cannot advertise cigarettes on Channel 5 and 8, you should not be allowed to do so either on a foreign channel carried by SCV or on Magix. Those foreign channels which have few local viewers should not interest us. Thus, SBA takes little notice of the occasional nude scenes that you find on French Channel 5 which is on SCV. But channels with significant local audiences must be put on the same level playing field and, during election time, the rule of campaigning must apply to these channels as they apply to TCS and STV 12. Otherwise, some candidates may be tempted to lobby foreign channels or even to buy air-time from them. The regulatory framework for local broadcasters is, of course, not static. With digitisation and the availability of bandwidth, we have to adjust our position all the time, which we have done. We have to flow with the tide in order to retain some freedom for ourselves. We have to maintain a certain degree of autonomy and find our own separate identity in the world, which we must if we are to remain competitive and be of service to others. Some people think that IT will eventually make all of us Americans one day. I doubt it. Yes, others also face the same challenge, like the French, the Germans, the Japanese and the Chinese. But they are determined they will be themselves and retain their own separate identities and I think we should do so too. But we can only do so by skilfully moving with the technology, not by being reactionary. And those Asian countries which cling to old positions rigidly will be undermined and will be swept aside. But we have got to play this game in a smarter way. Dr Lee Tsao Yuan today and Mr Low Thia Khiang and many others during the MND debate asked many questions about SCV and why is it HDB flat owners are cabled up for free while others have to pay some money. Dr Lee Tsao Yuan asked why it was SCV and not the Government who laid our cable network. She asked what aspects of SCV SBA regulates and how much subsidies are involved in laying the cable network. She also asked whether there will be an alternative provider to SCV. She also asked why SCV imposes different connection charges for HDB flats and private property owners. Because of the great interest shown in this House at this Budget debate on SCV, I would like to make a detailed clarification of the issues raised. In 1995, the Government agreed to let SCV lay an advanced island-wide cable network by 1st January 2000, in return for a limited 7-year monopoly on cable TV which will end in June 2002. This network is an important national infrastructure that could be used not only for cable TV but also for interactive multimedia services. Because of technological and market risks, the Government decided that Singapore's interests are best served by having the project commercially driven. Because we will not know how the technologies will change, how the policies will change, what new trends and new products will come to be, it was better from the start to make it a commercial undertaking than to develop it as a national infrastructure project. The alternative of managing it as public infrastructure would have made it much less responsive to technological and market changes. So, a private company was chosen to lay the infrastructure and provide services on a commercial basis. The shareholders are SIM, SPH, Singapore Technologies and Media One International, which is the third largest cable operator in the US. SBA regulates SCV on its cable roll-out plan, programming standards, customer service and inter-connection issues but not the details of SCV subscription rates and cabling charges, which are quite complex. While SCV has been given exclusive franchise in the provision of subscription TV, this exclusivity is limited both in scope and in duration. Let me explain. As a TV distributor, SCV faces strong competition from the terrestrial channels provided by the SIM group of companies. SBA requires it to carry most of the terrestrial channels for free, which is an unusual practice in the cable TV business. SBA has also allowed SingTel to offer video on demand and other broadband services like Magix. SCV's monopoly position is therefore a limited one. SCV's exclusive franchise is for 7 years, in exchange for which it is required to wire up the entire island, regardless of take-up by Singaporeans. In some countries, such as in the US, cable operators may be given up to 15 years exclusive franchise for cabling up households above the ground. SCV is required to lay all cables underground which makes the undertaking much more costly. SCV is aware from the very outset that its financial outlay will be considerable while its monopoly position is short. It knows that when its franchise ends in June 2002, the Government will be allowing other subscription TV services, both wired and wireless, including satellite, to operate here. SCV therefore cannot be complacent and its strategy is therefore to attract subscribers for the long term. Only if there are many long-term subscribers can SCV hope to recover its investment and make a decent return on shareholders' capital. SCV must therefore charge cable TV in a way which could win it a large base of loyal long-term customers. The cost of cabling varies with the dwelling type. Hence, HDB flats are cheaper to cable up than private highrise which are in turn cheaper than landed properties. For landed properties, again it varies, whether it is a terrace or bungalow. SCV's cost of cabling up all HDB flats amounted to $242 million. They receive $60 million from HDB, being the amount HDB would have to pay itself had it continued maintaining and upgrading its existing central antenna system in HDB estates. This comes with the flat, and HDB has an obligation to provide and maintain it and upgrade it from time to time when new channels become available. What HDB has done is to pass this buck to SCV and to pay SCV the amount it calculates it has to pay anyway if it undertook the responsibility for itself. 5.30 pm Neither HDB nor the Government subsidises SCV for cabling the estates. SCV decided that the difference of $182 million was worth incurring because of the advantage the large HDB customer base would give it over future competitors after its monopoly ends. Condominium dwellers pay a rate of $150 for the first cable point or $240 for the first two cable points. The cost of external wiring amounting to some $25 million is absorbed fully by SCV. For the cabling of landed properties, SCV decided to divide them into two groups. There are some 55,000 units, mostly terraces, semi-detached houses and small bungalows, which are located in or near mixed neighbourhoods, and they are near the main cable tap off points, so that they are easier to wire up. SCV's cost, on average, of cabling each of these homes, regardless of take-up, is about $2,300. This means that if one out of two homes subscribes to SCV, the cost of laying the cable per subscriber is $4,600, compared to the $2,300 which SCV charges per household. There is another group of some 5,000 bungalows located in low-density areas further away from the main cable tap off points. The cost of cabling such homes on average is $8,000 per unit, again regardless of the take-up. And if one in two bungalows subscribes, the cost to cable each bungalow subscriber is in fact $16,000, because you have to go a long way to reach one home. But in order to make it more attractive for these households to subscribe, SCV decided to charge each of these households about $6,000 in 2- or 3-year instalments. The cost to SCV of cabling up all landed properties is $177 million. Hence, at a 50% take-up rate, SCV would have to bear some $97 million in cabling costs for landed properties in Singapore. It is therefore completely untrue that landed property owners are subsidising condominium or HDB flat owners. SCV has decided to absorb a higher loss per household for landed properties as it believes that the take-up rate will be higher among such households. And this in fact has been borne out by their experience. According to SCV, the actual subscription rate is about 18% for HDB homes, less for 2- and 3-rooms, more for 4- and 5-rooms and Executive flats; 35% for private high-rise homes and about 40% for landed estates. This is actually an encouraging figure, given that our cable TV service started only in 1995. As a comparison, Hong Kong, which started its cable service in 1993 has a take-up rate of 24%. In the US, it took 50 years to reach a 70% take-up rate. It would not have been desirable for SBA to regulate the prices charged by SCV. Too many factors were involved, too many assumptions would have to be made. SBA could at best have set ceiling rates based on infrastructural cost recovery, but as I have explained, SCV's charges are well below infrastructural cost recovery. By September this year, SCV would have cabled up every home in Singapore. For landed property, this means a cable to the curbside. SCV would then position itself to take advantage of the broadband network SCV has laid, which is a valuable asset to SCV. Hence, in addition to subscription TV, SCV is working towards the commercial launch this year of a high-speed data service on cable modems, sometime at the end of this year. It is also working towards the provision of broadband services including integrated Internet telephony, video e-mail and video conferencing, and all these will help to make Singapore an IT hub in this part of the world. This is from the Government and the public perspective. From SCV's perspective, however, it is still not clear at all whether or not it will make money. When it negotiated the terms of the deal with the Government, Internet was not yet a big factor. Now it is, and all the calculations would have been quite different had they known of Internet coming. In the future, all kinds of digital services provided by different companies will be in fierce competition, and SCV will be one of many such competitors. I would also like to assure Mr Low Thia Khiang that even after Singapore has been wired up, free-to-air broadcast will continue because many of us are on the move, in trains, cars, buses. There will be wristwatch television sets or we may be in a boat. We may be in Johor or Batam. Dr Ho Tat Kin welcomed the launch of Channel News Asia, but mentioned the reception problem faced by some of his residents in Toa Payoh East. The vast majority of Singapore homes are connected to the cable network and can already receive Channel News Asia on Channel 6. There are, however, about 800 HDB blocks which are unable to get Channel News Asia for up to three months, because they are either at the tail-end of cabling or undergoing HDB upgrading works. SCV and HDB are working very hard to complete all the necessary work as soon as possible. TCS is also working with the management of private high-rise homes on facilitating reception of Channel News Asia. Residents of landed homes can seek assistance from TCS if they encounter difficulties in receiving the new channel. Dr Ho also asked whether CNA intends to go regional. CNA hopes to go up on satellite within a year if there is a regional market, which I think there should be. The Singapore International Foundation is also interested in folding all or part of Singapore international TV into Channel News Asia if it goes regional. As for setting up a similar channel in Mandarin, TCS will consider it at a later stage if the commercial case for such a channel is strong. Channel News Asia does not receive additional funding from SBA for establishing this news service. So it is a commercial undertaking by TCS and the Government will not bail it out if it turns out to be a failure. Mr Hawazi asked about the plan to establish the Malay Heritage Centre at Kampong Glam. I have on a number of occasions in this House mentioned that the Government would like to see the Istana at Kampong Glam converted into a Malay Heritage Centre. In May 1993 during the Budget debate, I informed the House that Mr Ridzwan Dzafir was chairing a working group to look into this. The working group subsequently made its recommendations and since then, we have had discussions with various Government agencies. And I am glad to now announce to the House that we are able to take concrete steps towards establishing this Centre. It has taken us some time but it has been worth the wait. MITA will soon establish a Foundation to develop the Malay Heritage Centre. We will invite leaders from the Malay community and others who are able to contribute to take part. Mr Ridzwan Dzafir has kindly agreed to be the Chairman of the Foundation, and I do not think that we could have found a better man for the job. He is a Boyanese himself. He told me once that the island where his ancestors came from, Pulau Bawaen, in the Java Sea, has a little kampong called Sangapura, named after Singapore, because of the large number of Boyanese who migrated to Singapore. The Foundation should aim to deepen our awareness of the history and culture of the Malays, and this heritage belongs not only to the Malay community but to all Singaporeans, to all of us. In this effort, we should take a wider view of the history of the Malays in the region and how the Malay community in Singapore has come to be. The Government will provide two buildings in Kampong Glam for the Foundation to house the Centre, the Istana Kampong Glam as well as the building next to it, which is known as the Bendahara House. The Government has just gazetted Bendahara House today for acquisition for this purpose. The Istana Kampong Glam, on the other hand, is State property, and has been so since 1897. The Government will first restore and conserve these two historic buildings. MITA will bear the renovation costs. After restoration in about 2-3 years' time, the buildings will be handed over to the Foundation to run. As I have announced to this House some years ago, the Government will provide a dollar-for-dollar matching grant of up to $2 million for the establishment of a Heritage Centre Endowment Fund. The Foundation will be encouraged to generate revenue of its own and to raise funds from corporate sponsors and from individuals. Support for the Foundation from the Malay community will be crucial to its success. And we hope that this Centre, when it is completed, will be a vibrant place which will engage Singaporeans and show the diversity of our heritage to the world. It should become one of our cultural anchor points, and it should also bring back life and activity to Kampong Glam. The development of the Centre should reflect the history of Kampong Glam. Being the seat of Malay royalty, it existed before Raffles arrived. After 1819, the Malay community in Singapore grew rapidly and included Arabs, Indians, Indian Muslims, Javanese, Buginese, Banjaris, Boyanese and others. And indeed the sense of a mixed community with diverse heritage is still evident in Kampong Glam today, names like Arab Street and Bussorah Street. Separate sections in Kampong Glam accommodated different groups like Kampong Melaka, Kampong Java, Kampong Bugis. Till today, some of our best Padang restaurants by Minang people are still to be found there. There are also Chinese stone masons and ironmongers, shopkeepers, making Kampong Glam a truly cosmopolitan district with its own distinct character. And nearby is the Sultan Mosque, which was planned for by Raffles, and it is interesting that till today, the trustees of the Mosque must include two North Indians, two South Indians, two Malays, two Javanese, two Buginese and two Arabs. So very early, the community decided that it must ensure wide representation. The Centre that we are establishing should somehow capture that old spirit, and through that old spirit, continue to link the Malay community in Singapore to all four corners of the Archipelago. Kampong Glam is to the Malay Muslim community in Singapore what Chinatown is to the Chinese community. Just as many Chinese in Singapore can trace part of their ancestry back to Chinatown, many Malay Muslims in Singapore can trace part of their ancestry back to Kampong Glam. Recently, there was a bit of public commotion over STB's plan to redevelop Chinatown. It created some inconveniences to STB, but it was a very good debate, because it showed that Singaporeans have strong emotional bonds to the land, and are concerned about what for them is sacred ground should be treated. In fact, if Singaporeans had showed no interest to the way Chinatown was being redeveloped, then we should worry, because it would then mean that we are just a hotel for Singaporeans, and Singaporeans are themselves rootless citizens with no sense of where they come from and who they are. So, I hope that the establishment of the Malay Heritage Centre at the old Istana will anchor the living heritage of the Malay Muslim community in Singapore. Mr Chew Heng Ching and Dr Ho Tat Kin have urged MITA to give more money to the arts, or to maintain the level of funding, because of the economic downturn. I was very worried last year that funding would dry up from the private sector, and some of our arts groups would suffer great pain. But, in fact, even though companies could afford less, many made a great effort to maintain the level of funding. Every year, I write letters to many corporations in Singapore, begging for money to support the annual festivals. Usually, whenever they can, whether in money or in kind, they would make the effort. What this shows is that the support for the arts in Singapore is no longer only by the Government but by a wide section of a community. But what the National Arts Council should do is to broaden this base further, and bring the arts to all housing estates, so that the arts are also local and indigenous in character, and in the process also widen the sponsorship base, the support base. I have therefore asked the National Arts Council to seek out smaller donors and smaller sponsors, and which is why I was delighted by the proposal made by Mr Seng Han Thong and others that we should make the effort to win over local businessmen. Chinese operas, for a long time, back to colonial days, were supported by local temples, clan associations, small businessmen and, of course, seventh moon groups, which is why it is at the seventh moon that the most Chinese operas have traditionally been shown. So we should now find a way to build upon this fine tradition in the HDB setting; modernise it, build upon it so that our seventh moon groups, our local businessmen, our clan associations, will continue to support the arts in its various forms. But to do that, we must reciprocate and give national recognition. So the National Arts Council is now working out a system of award for community sponsors and donors who give money to the arts. Right now, arts patrons have to give a minimum of $50,000 in any one year. That is a little bit too much for community supporters. We need maybe a new category of awards for our community leaders so that every year those who have contributed and those who have made big bids at seventh moon auctions can then dress up and receive proper awards from maybe the Chairman of the National Arts Council or the Minister. I think this is a very good idea. I thank Mr Seng Han Thong for it. We will certainly work towards implementing it in the near future. 5.45 pm Mr Goh Choon Kang said that the works of Pan Shou and other artists should be displayed in our museums and public places. This is a point also raised by Mr Peh Chin Hua. It is not always possible to have these works on permanent display because nowadays, and this is a worldwide trend, museums are like shopping centres. Each visit should be a different experience. When you enter the main hall, the main hall should look different after a few months. It should not be like in the old days when years after, people asked, "Did you see the whale bones up in the ceiling?" The artifacts were as permanent as they could be. We do not have many square metres of good museum spaces. So we have got to keep grabbing the attention of audiences so that they will come back again and again. They pass by, they have got a bit of spare time, it is raining outside, they say, "Let us go in and take a look. Maybe there is something on, something different." This is the way our museums will have to be, using multi-media, using modern marketing techniques in order to stay attractive and to stay relevant. So it is not easy for us to have a permanent display. Of course, if we have the Mona Lisa or the Venus de Milo, yes, I am sure there will be a permanent space for these things. But we have got to do it in a judicious way without boring Singaporeans or at the same time showing respect to those who have made very important contributions to the local arts scene. But the proposal that we should try and rotate our exhibits around to the different Ministries and statutory boards is a good one. In fact, this has already been done. The museums run an arts bank and they rent out the exhibits, to MITA, to MTI or to some statutory boards, in return for which they curate, they do the wordings, they come and change the exhibits once every year or two for a fee. If private corporations are interested, I am quite sure the museums would be able to work out an attractive deal and an attractive package for them. Pan Shou was not only a calligrapher. He was also a great poet. It is important that some of his poems are remembered by young Singaporeans. So the National Arts Council is working on a collection of his better poems which will be in the long Chinese form and in jianbizi with hanyu pinyin, with word by word translations, so that if you are a secondary school student, or if you are like me, trying to appreciate his poems, you do not have to take up a dictionary and check the meaning of words. Then it becomes too much of an effort. You sit down, you will be able to read, learn and enjoy the meaning and the spirit of the poem, in either English or Chinese. This is something which should be done this year. Mr Shriniwas Rai urged MITA to preserve buildings and to have more plaques for historically important buildings. This is an on-going programme. What the Heritage Board together with the Heritage Society tries to do, every year, is to mark more sites in Singapore so that Singapore is an island littered with memories, our finger prints and the finger prints of our ancestors all over. A park is not just a park. A park was also the setting for some important events in the past. Then every place becomes an interesting place, otherwise we build something, we clear it, we build something else, we are no better than a theme park or a hotel. If we keep on doing that, without leaving behind memories, without planting our roots, Singapore will never become a home for Singaporeans. This is a work of generations. Every year we must do some and I thank Mr Rai for his excellent suggestion. Of course, what we do for Singaporeans we are proud to show to tourists. If we can make some money for the tourism industry, that is wonderful. Which is why the Singapore Tourism Board supports many heritage projects. In many countries, heritage tourism is important. You read a brochure, it says, "Second World War fortification, the Percival Headquarters for Southeast Asia, come take a look." A tourist may be attracted to spend an additional half-a-day or a day in order to explore the fortification. That is good business for hotels, for shopkeepers, for restaurants, for businessmen who sell souvenirs. Mr Chuang Shaw Peng gave a very thoughtful contribution on the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship. He was very unhappy with the fact that sometimes we look down on our own values, that anything associated with Confucianism must be bad. We have many western friends who also tell us that we have inherited bad values and bad habits from our own past, which we should shed quickly, and perhaps become more like them. That is not a very historical view of things. Of course, there were things in our Confucianist past for Chinese Singaporeans which held us back, like the treatment of women, foot binding, the emplacement of businessmen at the bottom of the social totem pole. All that kept back the development of enterprise and the development of a free business spirit. But there were other aspects of our ancestral culture which are valuable to us and which account for a lot of the success of Singapore today, our high savings rate, our emphasis, almost obsession, with education, strong family unit, hard work, thrift, in fact, values which we cling on even more dearly in a crisis. Those things we should not lightly weaken. Mr Chuang talked about how Chinese and Indian groups perform differently in different settings. There is a cultural impulse which is a potential and in certain political settings, the potential flowers, blooms, like in Silicon Valley, like in Hong Kong, like in Taiwan, like in Singapore. In other settings, like under socialism in India, or communism in China, it was suppressed. So before the war, Shanghai, when it was mostly foreign concessions, was the greatest city in all of Asia. Under communism, it became gray and dark. With reform and opening up, it is blossoming again. This shows that the underlying cultural potential was always there, which is why I am not particularly concerned that we have no entrepreneurial spirit in Singapore. It is in our history, it is in our culture, it is in our blood. But what we must do is to ensure that our rules and regulations better enable this entrepreneurial spirit to come forth in the new high-tech knowledge economic setting. This is, of course, what the Technopreneurship 21 Committee is about, and about which I spoke a bit this morning during the debate on MTI.