Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Information and the Arts (BG George Yong-Boon Yeo): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Undesirable Publications Act, or UPA, was enacted more than three decades ago, in 1967, to provide for penalties against objectionable publications brought into the country.

At the time, publications were printed words and pictures compiled as books or simple reproductions like an audio tape. In recent times, technology has brought into the marketplace new media forms, with multi-media capabilities. The compact disc can contain text, sound and video. It may also have multiple applications. For example, if you play an enhanced CD on a hi-fi set, it functions as an audio CD. If played on the computer, it is a CD-ROM, and if played in a multimedia computer, it can show video clips as well.

Because of such technological advances, the traditional definition of publication can no longer be "all written, pictorial or printed matter." There is a need to re-define the term "publication". In this Bill, "publication" has been re-defined to include CD-ROMS, sound recordings, pictures, and drawings generated by computer graphics.

Our censorship policy is based on the principle of differentiation. Different media have different impact and the extent of censorship varies accordingly. In general, moving images have a greater impact than static images, which in turn, have a greater impact than words. We are most stringent with the visual media which reach the living rooms. Thus, we are strictest with free-to-air TV channels, but we allow more leeway for subscription services such as cable TV. With films, we differentiate between G, PG, NC-16 and R(A). For films shown to members of film societies, we are more relaxed.

Within the print medium, we make a distinction between pictorials and the written word. We are stricter with graphic publications meant for children such as comics depicting sex. We are least concerned with the printed text because reading them requires a certain level of education and concentration. Some books meant for adults are required to be wrapped in plastic or cellophane in the book shops, so that children cannot browse them lightly. This principle of differentiation was also adopted by the Censorship Review Committee in 1992.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our main target continues to be those who seek profit from distributing obscene publications. Currently, traffickers of obscene publications are referred to the Police for action to be taken under the Penal Code. There are no provisions to deal with such cases under the existing UPA.

Under clause 5 of the proposed amendments, those caught trafficking in obscene publications, by distributing, exhibiting, producing or having such publications for distribution, can be prosecuted under the UPA. The proposed penalty will be a maximum fine of $10,000 and/or a jail term of up to two years.

Clause 3 spells out what we mean by "obscenity":

'A publication is obscene if its effect or … the effect of any one of its parts or items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely … to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.'

We have also included in the amendments the definition of what is objectionable. While some publications may not be blatantly pornographic or controversial, they may still be objectionable in the way they promote promiscuous lifestyles or glorify criminal activities.

Under current legislation, other than confiscation, no further action can be taken against vendors who persist in selling objectionable publications. The proposed amendment will plug this present loophole so that vendors of objectionable publications can be prosecuted.

Clause 5 of the proposed amendments allows for penalties against such distributors. For distributing, possessing or reproducing objectionable publications, the penalty would be a fine up to $5,000 and/or a jail term for one year. This maximum fine is half that for obscene publications.

We will continue to ban publications such as Playboy and Penthouse. We will increase the maximum fine for the sale of such banned publications from $2,000 to $10,000. For the possession of a banned publication, the maximum fine will be raised from $1,000 to $2,000. No change is recommended in the jail terms as they are already a sufficient deterrent.

We have always exercised the power to ban or gazette publications sparingly. This policy will continue. We are in fact degazetting publications which, over time, are no longer objectionable on moral, religious or communal grounds. For example, the Journal of Contemporary Asia and the Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung have been recently degazetted.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry will continue to review its censorship rules from time to time to ensure that standards applied to publications and videos are in tune with changing social mores in Singapore and changes in the world around us.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (East Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. I am pleased to note that in this Bill, attention is being drawn to the implications of rapid and widespread dissemination of undesirable publications, aided by a new medium, such as CD-ROMS, which are also easy to duplicate. The revised definition of publications, in my mind, is long overdue in the light of the changing nature in which obscene and objectionable material is distributed and exhibited.

Sir, the new provisions for obscene publications in this Bill which have been previously absent would now give our enforcement agencies ground to rein in on distributors, exhibitors and publishers of such materials and I appreciate the tough stand that this Bill places on visual images as the impact of visual images, as the Minister has just said, is far more direct and damaging than the written word.

Sir, this Bill also serves to address the anomaly whereby offending vendors who sell objectionable publications would have their publications confiscated but suffer no further penalties. It is timely that penalties are now introduced and that these vendors have to be directly accountable for their participation in the distribution and sale of such objectionable materials.

Sir, while I am supportive of the measures in this Bill, I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister on the various items. The first question is: is this Bill, in the opinion of the Minister, a retrogressive step towards greater censorship of publications, or is it a step forward in our effort to promote a reading society and to promote the publishing industry?

Sir, I ask this question because I am concerned that a retrogressive step towards censorship would impact on the direction and the development of the literary and performing arts, an area which we are consciously promoting in line with our national objective to build a more gracious society. Would the Minister therefore update the House on the Government's latest thinking or policy towards censorship in Singapore?

Sir, clause 13 of the Bill leaves it to the expert judgment of any personnel authorised under the Bill to determine whether or not any publication is objectionable. I understand that this person or so-called controller will act from time to time under the direction of the Minister. May I therefore ask the Minister if he could tell the House what are the basic parameters guiding the actions of such officers and whether or not such parameters should indeed be stipulated in this legislation?

Sir, an area of clarification is also sought on the status of Internet Service Providers. The widened definition of publications includes information stored by the use of computers or other electronic device. Despite the existence of proxy services, ISP cannot fully police all such undesirable web pages and prevent access to such material, whether it is audio or visual, available through the Internet. Therefore, my question to the Minister is whether, with the passing of this Bill, operationally, the Bill will impose an overly onerous performance obligation on the part of the Internet Service Providers. Would the Minister please clarify?

Finally, Sir, I am pleased to note that within this provision of the Bill which is the new section 16, the Minister is able to grant exemption to allow, for example, institutions of higher learning to have access to such objectionable materials for research purposes. I think it is good. However, for the reassurance of this House that such discretionary powers are not unilaterally exercised, could the Minister please elaborate the guiding principles underlying any ground for exemptions?

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill as placed before this House.

Sir, the tough stand that the Government has taken with regard to obscene or undesirable publications on grounds of sex, violence, crime or drugs is appropriate and deserves support. In fact, I would say that in view of the rapid and complex technological developments in areas of periodical publications, media printing, there is a constant need to be more vigilant to ensure that the current legislation be kept relevant and that the standards of morality, decency and propriety are preserved. In this regard, Sir, I support the proposal to increase the penalties for such offences as stated in the amendments.

A new definition of what is objectionable, taking into account new technologies in sound recording and reproductions of pictures, photographs from computers, would be considered very appropriate and timely. However, Sir, while the Bill has provided for comprehensive guidelines to determine whether or not a publication is considered objectionable, it would indeed be extremely difficult in practice to determine what is objectionable. It is sometimes difficult to determine what constitutes torture, sexual and violent abuses and exploitation of nudity, let alone having to relate this with considerations for the literary, artistic, social, cultural, educational and scientific merit before deciding whether a particular publication is indeed objectionable. In fact, Sir, it is acknowledged, under the new section 2B, subsection (3), that the question whether or not a publication is objectionable is a matter for expert judgment. It is for this same reason, Sir, that it is in my view extremely difficult for any one person, such as the Chief Controller or delegated public officers, to exercise judgment over such a difficult matter and so decide or interpret the moral tone of our society.

In my opinion, Sir, I would suggest that a more civic participation involving a cross-section of our civil society be formed under the supervision of the Chief Controller to guide the Chief Controller in the interpretation and classification of such publications and to facilitate the smooth transmission, broadcast, circulation and exhibition of this publication for commercial considerations and yet in no way compromise our high standards of morality, decency and propriety.

On a more practical note, Sir, it would be difficult for any one person or corporation to determine what is objectionable and what is not. It may take expert judgment to decide how would any person or corporation find it easier to make such a decision. A person would have to make a very difficult decision whether or not to seek exemption or to determine that he has with him a publication that can be classified undesirable and may in fact find himself convicted simply because of error of judgment. Such a fear, Sir, would lead to the Chief Controller being inundated with publications that would require his approval. This could have detrimental commercial consequences. I seek the Minister's clarification and assurance that the mechanism to ensure the speedy and efficient processing of such publications is available. We should also have mechanisms where the decisions and objections to the Chief Controller and the Minister can be published and made readily available to the public giving reasons for the objections for ease of reference.

With regard to the new section 16, subsection (2), I wish to seek clarification from the Minister on the proposed fees to be imposed for seeking exemption for publications which are prohibited. In view of the low cost of these products, especially as a result of recent technology, such fees may be out of proportion to the cost of the product. Further, a period of three months for such publications and materials to be held in custody may be too long as the product could have become obsolete.

On the whole, Sir, I think this is a good Bill and wish to state my support for the amendments.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity to speak.

Sir, the Undesirable Publications Act goes back to 1938 when the colonial government first introduced it for the obvious purpose of controlling political literature. Things had changed. In 1967, the Act was repealed and re-enacted. Now, we have further amendments to the Act.

Sir, most civilised societies do not like to have censorship either on moral or political grounds. But we are not living in an ideal society. I think some degree of control has to be exercised by the society over the individual. On principle, I agree with the amendments and I support the Bill. However, I have some reservations and queries and I would like the Minister to give them his due consideration and I am sure he will do that.

Sir, we are an open society. We are in the age of information technology, satellite and cable television. Most homes have access to Internet. We are now receiving publications from India, China, Thailand, Bangladesh, Philippines, besides the traditional sources. Therefore, it is desirable that publications from these countries should not have anything that will undermine the social fabric of our society.

Not too long ago, an Indian publication which was sold in Singapore had a very undesirable photograph, though it was a beautiful photograph, in the middle of the magazine. Fortunately, Sir, I am pleased to note that this publication has not reappeared in Singapore. I do not know whether it is effective supervision by the Ministry or whether it is the voluntary will of the distributor.

Sir, we have moved a long way from the days of yellow culture of 1959 when some publications had to be prohibited. Times have changed. We must allow publications that will enrich our literary and artistic life. And I congratulate the Minister for allowing this provision in the Bill. This will ensure that the scholars are not denied these works.

I have a fundamental question which I would like to address to the Minister. This is regarding the new section 2B(1)(b).

Sir, a publication would be objectionable if it describes, depicts or otherwise deals with matters of race or religion which is likely to cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility. I beg the Minister to think of one further area which should be included, besides race and religion. Language is a very sensitive issue. Feelings of enmity and ill-will may result if a publication makes offensive comments on one's language or makes criticism in such a way that it will create ill-will.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are a multi-lingual country. As a result of political stability, the language fanatics are not in a position to inflame feelings. But not too long ago, the communalists were propagating supremacy of their language.

With your permission, Sir, I would like to go back to the early days of our Republic. At the Opening of the First Parliament on 8th December 1965, His Excellency the Yang Di-Pertuan Negara reminded the House and I quote:

'There are people in Singapore who, even after a few months of separation, still talked raucously, albeit foolishly, about the implementation of one language - the national language - in teaching at all levels including the university. If such a policy was unwise when we were part of the wider framework of Malaysia, now in the context of Singapore, the lunacy of such statement should have been manifest to all. Yet they are being made and considerable publicity in the Jawi press.'

We no longer have the Jawi press or extreme Malay leaders. It is to the credit of the Malay leadership and the people that the view of the sixties has been abandoned for the good.

Sir, language extremism is not the monopoly of any one group. There are chauvinists in every group, but we can minimize the danger. One small spark and the House is on fire. Let us have some fire prevention.

Sir, the fact that we do not have communal clashes must not leave us to believe everything is fine. From time to time, chauvinists rear their ugly heads. We must try to curb the exuberance of chauvinists. Language is a very emotive issue. People are prepared to die for it. Some do die in the hope that they will become martyrs.

We can learn from the experience of other countries where language groups clash. The end result is chaos and disorder. These countries often experience riots. We too had our fair share of riots and curfews. I think there is a loophole in the Bill. Let us cover it now to prevent a floodgate. We have not seen for sometime the language issue being openly debated, but it can reappear.

We pride ourselves as pragmatic people practising prevention and looking beyond the horizon. We enacted the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. The law has a salutary effect. The fanatics and fundamentalists have adopted a moderate line. The need to enforce the law has not arisen because of the Act.

May I urge, in a similar vein, the Minister to consider including language in the sub-clause. If he cannot do so, he should state his stand on the matter so that a clear message will be sent to the would-be mischief makers.

Sir, I welcome control of objectionable publications. However, I would like to plead for caution. We must not prohibit publications as long as they do not question our fundamental beliefs. We must keep our windows open even if it means some foul air coming in. The Bill is going to give the Government wide power. There is no way to check against abuse.

May I suggest that whenever the official decides to classify any publication as objectionable publication, he should consult advisers who are drawn from outside the Government. In this way, the public would have confidence in the decision of the official, bearing in mind that there is no appeal to the Court, as the Minister's decision is final. I therefore plead for establishing a Committee of Advisers.

Sir, we also must urge the publishers and booksellers to have some degree of self-censorship. Recently, my attention was drawn to a book by one of the popular fiction writers in America. It is supposed to deal with the corporate world, but every one in 10 pages speaks of explicit sexual acts, often fringing on perversity. I will not mention the book to this House but I will give the title to the Minister.

Sir, I can do no better than to end my speech by quoting again the Address of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in 1965. May I quote:

'Needless to say, the more extreme any community is about one race, one language and one religion, the more likely it is to arouse counter chauvinism amongst the other communities to the detriment of all.'

Sir, with this, I end my speech and I support the Bill.

Mr Simon Tay: Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. The amendments are commendable. The policy of differentiation the Minister has explained is a progressive step. In deciding what is objectionable, the Bill will take into account different audiences and media and also allow the recognition of merit on scientific, artistic and other grounds. I believe this follows the Report of Prof. Tommy Koh's Censorship Review Committee 1992. I think this is something we should all support.

I, however, wish to seek one assurance from the Government and to offer three suggestions. The assurance I seek is with respect to the meaning of "obscene". The Bill gives a new definition of the word. This definition needs to be clear as regards other laws which use the same word. There is a degree of overlap with section 292 of the Penal Code which provides sanctions for the sale of obscene goods. As such, the assurance I seek from the Minister is that there will be a consistent interpretation and application of what is obscene under the different laws.

Let me move on to my three suggestions. My first suggestion is in respect of panels to assist the Chief Controller. The Bill defines "objectionable" to take into account the impact of the medium, artistic, scientific, educational and other merits, and standards of morality generally accepted by reasonable members of the community. This is commendable. Past Malaysian and Singaporean cases have not taken such criterion into consideration. In the past, we have seen books as the Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller be the subject of criminal prosecution. Similarly, in England and other societies, there had been controversies surrounding D.H Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover. Today, such texts are studied in University or even at 'O' levels without controversy. So, as the Minister has recognised and this Bill recognises, standards change. However, given this dimension of change over time and the reference to society's changing mores, and given the expanded criterion, can the Chief Controller alone or Controllers within the Administrative Service by themselves decide what is objectionable?

This then comes to my suggestion. The decision-making on what is objectionable should include both specialists and representatives of the community at large. They would assist and advise the Chief Controller. I understand that the Ministry has done this informally already. The process should be formalized and publicized. This can be an area of growth for civil society, by which I mean that civil society, the citizens of Singapore, should progress towards greater self-responsibility and self-regulation.

I move on to my second suggestion. This is that distributors of publications be allowed on a voluntary basis to make prior submissions to the Ministry. Sir, the Bill and the Act, as they exist, are largely reactive. After a publication is imported, the Controller can decide and require certain actions to be taken. However, import and distribution of publications for sale are a business. Business requires certainty and proper planning. Powers under the Bill should then be proactive and pro-business. My suggestion in core and in sum is that distributors have the option to submit on a voluntary basis a sample copy to the Controller to have his permission for import. There should be a time limit given to the Controller to give a decision, favourable or otherwise, and then if favourable, the books can proceed en masse.

Again, I understand this is the informal practice under section 10 of the existing Act. However, it is sometimes after mass imports have already been made. My suggestion would reduce uncertainty and risks for distributors.

My third suggestion is that the public should have greater access to the list of objectionable publications. Of course, not the objectionable publications themselves but the list. The new section 2B of the Bill provides that the Chief Controller shall keep and maintain a register of objectionable publications. The list serves to inform people. However, there is no provision that the register should be made known. As such, my suggestion is that it is preferable to have the objectionable publications gazetted and, moreover, for practical public access, the register should be listed on Internet and copies of the register made available for inspection perhaps at main reference libraries.

With that, I support the Bill.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, the Undesirable Publications (Amendment) Bill is intended to restrict obscene and other objectionable publications, taking into account the technological developments in Singapore. It also raises penalties. The Bill, however, does not cover "films" which are covered by the Films Act.

This Bill is to be welcomed as it seeks to take into account the gaps in the law which have arisen through technological developments, especially electronic publications. The definition of "publications" now includes computer-generated or stored graphics and sounds, and the definition of "supply" also covers the transmission of such publications through computers.

The definition of "obscene" is the same as that used in the new Films Bill, though the latter does not contain a definition of "objectionable". This means that there can be both obscene films and publications, but no "objectionable films". It is not clear why this is the case.

Another concern that I have is the somewhat wide meaning of "objectionable". For example, in the new section 2B(1)(a), it is stated that:

'a publication is objectionable if … it … describes, depicts, expresses or otherwise deals with … matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, violence or the consumption of drugs … in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good;'

The controllers appointed by the Minister are the guardians of the public good, as it is their opinions that count in the Bill. In forming their views, they need not take evidence. It is said that whether a matter is objectionable or not is a matter for expert judgment. It is by no means certain how one can acquire training and expertise to determine whether a publication is likely to be injurious to the public good, or what level of injury is required before a publication is declared to be objectionable. Further, new subsection 2B(3) is unclear as to who should provide these experts with the evidence which they are under a duty to consider, if available. All in all, it seems to be an open-ended provision that may be difficult to apply, and even more difficult to challenge. I should like to know whether this is actually intended.

The second issue I wish to raise is that the Bill does not purport to deal with the different types of obscene publications. In the new Films (Amendment) Bill, there is a special provision on aggravated offences where a child or young person is involved. A simple illustration will be sufficient to expose the anomaly in the proposed laws. An obscene film is made using a young person. The person who makes the film or who procures the young person to make such a film will face a minimum of a $20,000 fine, with the possibility of an $80,000 fine ceiling, and two years in prison. Another takes a set of obscene photographs involving the same person is liable to a fine under this Bill not exceeding $10,000 or two years jail or both. In the days before photo-realistic images can be produced on the computer or camera, it may be justifiable to distinguish between film and publication. But now the distinction, I submit, appears to be spurious. I would urge the Minister to take this point into account.

Where a distinction is not spurious, but where it is not drawn in the Bill, is in the case of child pornography. The new Bill does not make this distinction. The Films (Amendment) Bill makes such a distinction. What is the reason for the difference in approach? It cannot be that a pornographer who exploits a young person by taking photographs is morally less reprehensible than his counterpart who makes a film. In many jurisdictions, child pornography has been singled out as a particular evil requiring special sanctions. In the US alone, about 15 states have enacted special provisions to tackle this problem. We should do the same, as we have done in the case of films.

I should like to quote the statement of Louis Freeh, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, giving evidence before the Senate Appropriations Committee last year. There he said, and I quote:

'Our children are our nation's most valuable asset. They represent the bright future of our country and hold our hopes for a better nation… Our children are also some of the most vulnerable members of society. …. Protecting our children against the fear of crime and from becoming victims of crime must be a national priority.'

He then went on to point out that the marvellous advances in computer and telecommunications technology "that allow our children to reach out to new sources of knowledge and cultural experiences" are also exposing them to exploitation and harm.

I would therefore most earnestly urge the Minister to review the existing and proposed legislation, with the following considerations in mind. First, there should be a distinction made between child pornography and other types, with enhanced penalties for the former. Second, there should be no distinction made between pornography in films, in publications and in broadcasting. Third, there should perhaps be a refining of the definitions used in the legislation.

Sir, I support the Bill subject to what I have said above.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.30 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Dr Toh See Kiat (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to deal with some matters of definition and address some very specific issues in this Bill.

This new Bill is meant to cover new computer technology and the word "broadcast" is to have the same meaning as that word in the Copyright Act, and "broadcasting" has a similar corresponding meaning. There in the Copyright Act the word is defined as "broadcast by wireless telegraphy". Electronic transmission is defined in this Bill as "excludes broadcasting" while supply of publication is defined by the Bill as covering electronic transmission. This leaves an area of electronic transmission where messages are broadcast, that is, they are sent to several parties with one press of the button. I hope the Minister would confirm whether or not such broadcast materials as, for example, e-mail or fax, are subject to the provisions of this Bill.

Second, the word "publication" is defined to mean "any book, magazine or periodical, whether in manuscript or final form". As far as form goes, Mr Speaker, Sir, electronic books and magazines are today feasible. Are these in "final form"? It is, I submit, necessary to add after the words "final form" some words like "and published in whatever medium, whether tangible or otherwise", to clearly cover Internet publications and so-called "E-zines" if this be the purpose.

Third, the word "supply" is defined. A similar word is defined in a slightly different way in the next Bill that will be tabled before the House at a subsequent sitting, and that is the Films (Amendment) Bill. I would like to ask if the two definitions which serve the same purpose essentially be worded in a similar way, please.

Fourth, the word "obscene" is defined in this Bill, and again this word is also defined in the Films (Amendment) Bill. What I need to say here, I may have to say it again in the debate on the Films (Amendment) Bill. Suffice it to say, it was Bertrand Russell, the sceptic, who said "it is obvious that obscenity is not a term capable of legal definition. In the practice of the courts, it means 'anything that shocks the magistrate'". I suppose we do not want such an arbitrary standard.

As I recall, an American judge was once asked to define "obscenity". I do not remember his exact words, so allow me to paraphrase. He said in effect that obscenity is not easy to define. Nevertheless, it is like an elephant. "I know it when I see it". Our legislative draftsman has boldly proposed a definition. Obscenity is defined, "such as to tend to deprave or corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter …".

This definition of obscenity is archaic, or at least in archaic terminology. It comes from the 1868 case of R v. Hicklin, words, which were further developed, I understand, in the definition section of the UK's Obscene Publications Act 1959. Furthermore, it is too narrow in our modern age. Many things which the majority of Singaporeans regard as obscene may not necessarily be seen as "depraved" by some sectors. The definition, however, requires all who see, hear or read the publication to consider it "depraved" or in other words "evil". With the decline of moral values, even so-called family magazines and newspapers display full frontal nudes in the name of art or news. Many would still say this is obscene, but not all the same people may actually condemn it as "depravity". Depravity has very negative and ominous overtones, and is reserved today for some truly obnoxious and heinous behaviour. Instinctively, many people would hesitate to call full frontal nudity per se as "evil".

It is easier to note what is "lewd" or "indecent" or "morally unseemly" in specific circumstances. I would like therefore to update the definition of "obscenity" to something that is easier to apply, such as the words "such as to lead right minded people to consider it lewd, depraved, corrupt or morally unseemly". Perhaps, in addition, we should also have a list of criteria such as in the new section 2B(2) to help the court or the Controller decide what is indeed obscene.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Resolved,

That the proceedings on the item of business under discussion and the remaining items on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think much of what I wanted to say has already been said by other speakers. But I do wish nevertheless to lend my support and voice the concerns that have been expressed by several of the speakers who spoke on this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Amendment Bill now seeks to assign or to confine to persons, or a person it may be, to decide what we may read, what we may see, or what we may hear. It would appear from the Bill that the community is not to have any say on this, because there is no provision made for any appeal. There is no board, as it were, that is proposed which may hear any appeals from any decision made by the Controller or any authorised officer. So the society is not to have any say at all in what it sees, reads or hears, but it has to be determined by an officer. We know not what the age of this officer will be. He may be a fairly young man who is charged with the task of deciding what is good and what is not good for the society to see, read or hear.

The Act itself contains in section 3 a very wide blanket power given to the Minister to prohibit any publication which he considers contrary to the public interest. And that itself is without any appeal to either the courts or to any body set up to consider the Minister's decision. So I would have thought since the Government already has this all-embracing power given to the Minister, objectionable and obscene publications could just as well be brought under the scrutiny of the Minister for him to exercise his power under section 3 of the Act. But now this Bill proposes to add two other definitions, "obscene" and "objectionable" as matters on which the decision of an authorised person is to be final.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the last speaker in his comment on clause 3 of the Bill on the meaning of obscene, called it archaic. It is almost impossible for anyone to really understand what is meant by a publication that tends to "deprave and corrupt persons". It is an all-catching phrase and there are no criteria set out as to what should be considered as depravity and what should be considered as corrupting persons. And there is nothing in this Bill which says who is to decide what is obscene. There is, of course, a new section 2B, under clause 3, which leaves the question of determining "objectionable" publication to a person authorised by the Minister.

As I said, Mr Speaker, Sir, the main object of this Bill would appear to me to consign all our reading materials, all our materials that we see or hear, to the judgment of one person. Is this a fitting way to prepare us for the 21st century? It might have been all right in the 18th century or the 17th century. But is that how we are going to regulate society in the 21st century that decisions about what a citizen shall read, hear or see should all be left in the hands of a single officer? As someone had said, is this Bill retrogressive or is it progressive? Certainly, if you look at the control that is to be given to one particular man to decide what society shall read or hear or see, it is retrogressive. It does not take into account the concern of the society and what the society thinks.

Let us look at the definition of "objectionable". In clause 3 (new section 2B(2)(d)) any publication would be considered objectionable if the officer takes the view that it offends the standards of morality, decency and propriety that are generally accepted by reasonable members of the community. How is he going to determine the standards of morality accepted by reasonable members of the community or will he impose his own standards of morality, decency and propriety and say, "That's it. This is what I say should be your morals and you comply with it." Equally, under sub-paragraph (c), he is asked to decide whether it has any merit, value or importance in relation to literary, artistic, social, cultural, educational, scientific or other matters. Is he equipped, Mr Speaker, Sir, to make this judgment?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is time for us to trust our people to take judgments on what is good for the society as a whole and not to continue to behave as though the members of the society cannot make any judgment or decision for themselves but everything must be made for them. I think it was not very long ago, the Economist wrote about the Singapore nanny. I think perhaps we can try and do a little less with the nanny taking charge of everything for the people.

There have been suggestions that perhaps a committee should be set up now which will decide questions of morality and other questions as to whether any views or books are likely to cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different racial or religious groups.

So I would add my plea, the plea that has been made, that the questions that I have raised should not be left to the decision of one person but it is time that we set up a board of persons. We have the Inter-Religious Advisory Board. We have other boards. Is it not possible for us to get their help to formulate standards of morality and decency that the society should follow? I would urge the Minister that he should not move on to the Third Reading of the Bill this afternoon but that he should refer the Bill to a Select Committee now so that the views of the community may be heard as to what they think of the Bill and its definitions and, particularly, people from the literary and artistic bodies, cultural bodies and educational bodies be heard on what should be considered as objectionable or even obscene.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a difficult question to decide what is obscene. To many, it would appear that the human body itself is obscene if there is a drawing of the human body. Is that what we consider obscene? Sometimes, I am surprised when persons are charged with an obscene act where it would appear that displaying the human body is considered to be an obscene act. So my plea is that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee and the views of the community heard and that we should not rush into passing this Bill this afternoon. But if that is not possible, then consideration should be given to finding other ways than to consign the judgment on these matters just to a single person. And even if that is not acceptable, consideration should be given to providing for a system of an appeal to an independent board or body that will then be able to pronounce on it.

BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: 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.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister by way of clarification? He assures us that there are advisory panels and the like. But does he not think that there is a big difference between having advisory panels and a board or a committee which makes the decision and which can hear representations from the people who wish to put out the publication?

BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, the mechanism by which we bring in public opinion and allow for standards and benchmarks to shift from time to time was examined in great detail by Prof. Tommy Koh's Censorship Review Committee in 1992. They were on the whole very satisfied with the mechanism that we had in place. There may be an argument that sometime in the future we should formalise all these panels and committees in statute. As of now, this is not necessary. They have worked well and they have served us well. Maybe in a few years' time

Mr Jeyaretnam: 21st Century.

BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: When we make another overall review, we can consider whether some of these mechanisms should be made more formal. But what we really want is a mechanism which is speedy and practical. There are very few complaints today from the trade. As I have mentioned to the House, I myself have received very few complaints. We do not really want to make the process so complicated. Members will be amazed at the number of magazines and comic books that run through the hands of the censors. My guiding principle is that they should not increase their staff. In the old days, they would run through every video tape. It is not possible now. And when you can put the whole Encyclopedia Britannica into a few disks, trying to censor everything is impossible. We do it selectively and in a practical way. We have a practical mechanism in place. It is not broken. There is no need to fix it.

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. - [BG George Yong-Boon Yeo].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment, read a Third time and passed.