You have asked me to talk about our effort to develop Singapore as a "global media city". So this afternoon, I will address the interest on this issue and elaborate on our media policy to achieve this objective.

But first, we should take a quick look at the state of the media industry here. Prior to 2000, the media industry in Singapore was compartmentalized into SPH in news publications and MCS in TV and radio broadcast. This was the prevailing structure for quite a long time. But with technological advancements and new industry trends such as convergence and multi-media operations, the key media players were keen on diversifying their traditional media operations. In particular the possibility of multi-modal operation, newspaper, TV and radio drawing from one common newsroom, seemed to offer potential advantages. Of course the small size of the domestic market was a major obstacle to competition. However as both key players were keen to diversify, the government decided that it should not restrain such competition. Hence in Jun 2000 licenses were issued to SPH and MediaCorp, upon their applications, to undertake new broadcast and newspaper operations.

The liberalization sparked off intense competition between the incumbents. On the plus side, it has resulted in greater diversity in our media market. Competition has given consumers wider choices. Singaporeans now have access to more local newspapers, free-to-air TV channels and radio stations. Another 37 subscription TV channels on SCV’s cable TV service vie for viewers. Singaporeans are spending more time watching TV and reading more newspapers.

But whether competition for attention has raised the overall tenor or quality of the media content is debatable. In fact sometimes when I surf the TV channels and watch snippets of mindless sitcoms and what passes for entertainment, I wonder whether competition has led us to the lowest common denominator. The proliferation of chatline advertisements with not so subtle girlie ads in some newspapers also does not look healthy. This may not be due to media competition per se but I do wonder whether it reflects the relentless pursuit of ad revenue.

What I do find reassuring is that local FTA channels have succeeded in raising their average weekly reach from 84% in the first quarter of 2001 to 90% in the first quarter of 2003. Despite cable TV, the FTA channel share grew from 47% in the third quarter of 2001 to 49% in the first quarter of 2003. Another encouraging development is the increase in weekly local programming from 50 hours in 2001 to 91 hours in 2002, with the entry of two additional channels in the market.

This shows that local FTA TV programming has been able to maintain its share of viewers. We are not about to be swamped by WWE, endless reality shows and serialized shenanigans of young ladies in some far-off city. It speaks well of the local broadcasters’ ability to produce interesting, stimulating and entertaining programmes which hopefully bear important social messages and values for Singaporeans.

However, it has not all been plain sailing for the media players in this new and competitive market place. While there are opportunities for cross-media business, introduction of competition has also brought up new challenges for the incumbents. That this took place when the economy was slowing down and undergoing major adjustments, only added to the difficulties of starting up new operations which would have been expensive at the best of times. For instance the economic slowdown has had a significant impact on advertising revenue, judging by the advertisement space taken up in the newspapers and TV channels. So while consumers would appear to have more choices, we cannot yet tell whether this outcome can be sustained and translated into viable commercial returns to the media companies. If our market proves too small for this degree of competition, the players will have to reassess their business strategies and ambitions. In this new competitive media market, each player will need more creative, entertaining and informative programming and presentation backed by strong and innovative management to transform the growing appetite for media products into profitable business models.

To become a global media city, we need more than a competitive local media sector. We need to bring the international media to Singapore. Today we are already hosting many international media representatives and operations – 190 accredited foreign journalists representing 67 foreign media organizations and about 18 satellite broadcasters. They are here to cover regional events and developments. International news agencies such as Reuters and Bloomberg, and broadcasters such as Discovery Asia, CNBC and BBC have their regional operations in Singapore. They find Singapore a convenient take-off point into the region. Our excellent telecommunications and air links to regional countries and indeed the rest of the world, availability of experienced support staff and media personnel and extensive network of financial services are some of the critical factors attracting international media to use Singapore as their regional hub.

International publishers have also been attracted by our efficiency and connectivity with the world. 32 foreign newspapers and news periodicals are printed in Singapore. These include the International Herald Tribune (16,000 copies per issue), Financial Times (12,000 copies per issue), The Asian Wall Street Journal (15,000 copies per issue), Newsweek (275,000 copies per issue) and TIME (340,000 copies per issue).

The strong presence of international news and broadcast organizations in Singapore suggests that we are already well on the way towards becoming a global media hub. But we must do more to anchor and attract other industry players to come here.

Singapore welcomes the foreign media. Foreign media is part and parcel of our vision as a global media hub. Foreign media, with their global connections, help to provide more comprehensive coverage of news and events around the world keeping us in closer contact with the global happenings and trends. They give us a non-Singaporean perspective of these events. We not only welcome foreign newspapers to be based here, we also allow them to circulate their publications.

The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, and the Broadcasting Act established our policy in relation to foreign newspapers and broadcast services circulating or broadcasting in Singapore to Singaporean audiences. Foreign publications and broadcast services should not engage in domestic politics. Otherwise, they run the risk of having their circulation restricted. Over the years, the foreign media have accepted our right of reply to correct and refute erroneous and tendentious reports or comments. Since setting out the rules for the privilege of circulating in Singapore, we have achieved a balanced and workable relationship with the foreign media. I look forward to strengthening this relationship to forge a win-win outcome.

What about the role of the foreign journalists based here? They are welcome to report on local developments and write for Singapore newspapers, based on the principles of accuracy, fairness and balance. But they should not use the local media as a platform to influence Singaporeans with their ideas of governance or the policies of the government, including policies on the media. When Michael Backman, an Australian writer based in London, wrote a commentary "Is Singapore being Paranoid" which Today published on 8 Oct 03, arguing in strident terms that Singapore should abolish the NPPA and free up the media on the western model, a strong reply to rebut his allegations was necessary. By attacking the government’s media policy and urging the adoption of the western model, he had clearly crossed the line and engaged in our domestic politics.

Over the years, the Government has adopted a more consultative approach and encouraged freer debate on national issues and politics in the media and many different fora. But one OB marker, which remains firmly in place, is the requirement that foreign journalists stay out of Singapore’s politics. Only Singaporeans and the elected Government can decide the form of governance that is appropriate for Singapore.

Will this impede our development as a media hub? Our success in attracting and anchoring major foreign media to Singapore in the past twenty years strongly refute such concerns. In 1986, there were only 82 foreign correspondents working for 65 news agencies, magazines and broadcasters based in Singapore. Today we have, as I mentioned earlier, 190 foreign correspondents from 85 news agencies and broadcasters based here. We have not done too badly. We have made clear our intent and areas of concern. I don’t see why foreign media given the advantages of operating from Singapore, would not want to do so because they cannot participate in domestic policies. After all when we did get into an argument with them, they often denied that they had interfered with domestic politics!

When we speak of developing Singapore as "a global media city", some commentators asked "Is that possible with the way the Government regulates the media here?" The impression is that for Singapore to realize our ambition, we need to have the same free-for-all, sensationalistic and politically motivated media, which exists in some other countries. I beg to differ. The government’s policy on local media is well-known. The local media’s role is to report the news accurately, factually and objectively for Singaporeans. The local media have an important role in our nation building effort. They can raise our awareness of what is happening inside and outside Singapore and educate Singaporeans for the rigours of survival and success in an increasingly competitive globalised economic environment.

Local media must not lose sight of its core responsibility to serve Singapore and Singaporeans’ needs and to further our national interests. The media, with your ability to influence the hearts and minds of the people, have a major influence on public opinion. People can be swayed by what they see on TV or in the bold newspaper headlines. Your role is to inform and educate Singaporeans without compromising the nation’s overriding need for social and political stability. Hence our media policies are formulated to bring about a free and responsible media.

In the US and some other countries, the media is the fourth estate. This model has evolved out of such countries’ social and political developments. The media in these countries has taken on the role of setting the public agenda, campaigning for or against policies and holding themselves up as the final arbiter of policies and political leaders. But our circumstances are quite different from other countries and what may work for them will have a totally different result in Singapore.

Nation building is a key role of our media because no foreign media will do it for us. It is the duty of Singapore’s media to do its part for national education and values. This will help to build a strong national consensus and social resilience to enable Singaporeans to respond cohesively and rationally to challenges.

The recent outbreak of SARS was an example of how the media played its part in informing and educating the public. The Government had adopted a transparent and frank approach in dealing with the disease outbreak, while the media had resisted the temptation to speculate and sensationalize. Instead of rushing out the latest sensational story which may end up demoralising and panicking the public as seen in other SARS affected countries, our media worked with the Government to get full and reliable reports out as quickly as possible, putting developments in context and explaining what people could to do protect themselves. Their graphics of how the illness spread, and how the epidemic was developing, were minor masterpieces in public education and communication. As a result, we were able to introduce effective countermeasures promptly, such as home quarantine, and maintain public support for them. Well-informed Singaporeans remained calm, confident and socially responsible in the national fight against SARS. There was no panic among our people and we were able to contain the coronavirus swiftly, effectively and with fewer lives lost than we feared.

The responsible and objective paradigm for the local media does not mean that alternative viewpoints and concerns cannot be articulated and raised for public discussions. Criticisms of policies or alternative perspectives are always welcome but should be carefully researched and presented separately from the news reporting, clearly identified as view of the writer or commentator. With competition, our local media have grown adept at presenting news and reactions of the people to various issues. And Singaporeans are not afraid of giving their views on government policies to a TV reporter on Orchard Rd or by writing to the Forum Pages of one or the other local papers. What remains inappropriate is for the media to editorialise in its reporting of the news or to report the news with a twist just to be different. Doing so will confound readers as to the intent and impact of the issues being reported upon.

We do expect robust criticisms and difference of opinions. This is part of the democratic process. But the media must be prepared for robust responses from the government. If the Government remains silent, it may be misinterpreted by the public as a sign of weakness and over time, erode confidence in the Government. When journalists want to campaign for political viewpoints or issues, they should not do so from their media positions which give them unique opportunity to influence the public. They should enter the political contest, declare their intention and campaign as politicians. Hence, when the PAP recruits journalists into its rank for elections to Parliament these candidates invariably leave the media so that they will also not be able to speak from a privileged position using their media access.

I know that the task of the local media is not an easy one. Apart from its role in forging national consensus, the local media also need to respect the sensitivities present in our multi-racial and multi-religious society. The same is required when the local media report on Singapore’s external relations. Foreign Governments may not always draw a distinction between what you say and what was the Government’s own position. You will remember the furious reaction when a senior journalist in 2000 used what she thought was an innocuous figure of speech to describe the Prime Minister of a neighbouring country. So remember that your comments on our neighbours and friends can have powerful ripple effects on Singapore’s foreign relations. Your words count for more than you may think.

The task may be challenging, but we have done well. Our press standards have developed over the years. The Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao are well regarded in the region and beyond, as credible, reliable sources of information. CNA is acquiring the same reputation. This achievement did not come by easily and was gained despite occasional dismissive remarks by critics that the Singapore media was Government controlled and only a mouthpiece. You must not be too easily rattled by such diatribes, or try too hard to take a different view just to prove them wrong. You have to remain firm in your resolve and conviction to always act in Singapore’s interest and not because you crave the praise and adulation of those who snipe at us.

Some commentators have also asked whether our efforts to nurture a media industry encompassing creative works in film, TV and publishing, can succeed when there is censorship. Some have also asked if creativity could thrive in our environment. Why do we have censorship at all? We maintain a censorship framework for three key reasons.

First, it is to preserve a level of public decency which the society is comfortable with. Last year, the 2002 Censorship Review Committee found that up to 70% of a survey respondents expressed support for the current censorship standards and wanted the Government to continue its censorship role. Of course there were others who disagreed and wanted faster and greater liberalization. But we cannot override the majority’s concern over the impact of a liberal attitude towards media content on the younger generation just to placate a vocal minority. The Government does not exercise censorship arbitrarily. When MDA was considering the application to exhibit plastinated human cadavers, it was very concerned with public sensitivity to such display. We noted that elsewhere similar exhibitions had sparked controversy and protests. I even received a strongly worded email from the wife of a former Ambassador urging the government to prohibit such displays. So instead of imposing its own judgment, MDA took some time to consult its advisory councils. Since the MDA’s advisory councils were generally in favour of allowing the exhibition, Singaporeans finally have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether they should pay to see the display. MITA and its agencies have many advisory councils made up of ordinary Singaporeans to help draw up the content guidelines and decide on what should be censored and what is acceptable.

Secondly, we censor to preserve public law and order. We are a multi-racial and multi-religious society. Racial and religious sensitivities have not disappeared even after 38 years as an independent nation enjoying racial and religious harmony. When the play "Talaq" was first performed in Tamil and limited to a largely Indian audience, there was no objection. But when it was to be performed in Malay and English, the reaction on the ground was quite different. The Muslim community was very much against such a performance and it had to be stopped. We should not under estimate the dangers of awaking latent religious fervour. Once the genie is out of the bottle for whatever reason, putting it back is not easy.

The foreign media and a few of our own journalists continue to question the need for censorship and lack of freedom of expression. When we did not have a Speaker’s Corner, they asked why not. When a Speaker’s Corner was created and few turned up to make resounding speeches, they looked for other evidence of repression and pointed to the rules and regulations which prohibit the speakers from raising sensitive issues. The need to ensure law and order is often disregarded. Recently the film, "15" was rated for adults and less than five minutes of the film was censored because Police was deeply concerned with the impact on gang members watching footage of secret society activities on screen. Police felt that this could spark off gang fights. But some media report including a CNN programme alleged that it was censored because of concerns on "national security." How did a simple law and order matter escalate into a "national security" issue?

Third, we censor so as to be able to enlarge the room for expression. By rating media content for different age groups, restricting content to different time belts and also display venues, we can in fact allow more diversity and room for creative expression. So once the content guidelines are formulated with the help of advisory councils, Singaporeans would be able to watch "Sex and the City" late in the evening on cablevision and 18 year olds can watch M18 movies in cineplexes.

As we try to realize our vision as a global media city, our censorship framework cannot remain static and unchanging. More so as we seek greater economic openness and exchanges which invariably subject ourselves to the influences arising from trends and developments elsewhere. Nor can we disregard the need for more space for creative expression and greater diversity and choices for adults. Hence in September this year, government accepted the recommendations made by the 2002 Censorship Review Committee (CRC) to strike a balance between more space for artistic and creative expression and preservation of our moral standards and public decency. Even as we strive towards a more creative and entrepreneurial society, we still have to safeguard core community values, such as the sanctity of the family unit, social and religious harmony and moral integrity.

So, can Singapore be a media city? I believe we can. The response of the local media players to liberalization and competition has shown that we do have a core of players who are increasingly able to engage in media enterprises and to grow the business. But doing so in Singapore alone is not enough. Our market is close to saturation. Hence our media operators must shift their focus to the regional market. I see the efforts of MCS to take CNA into the region as a very positive move. In the short space of four years since its inception, CNA has succeeded to reach out to the regional markets. CNA is today being received and watched in Hong Kong, Indonesia, the Philippines, India and several other countries. While CNA still has some way to go before achieving truly regional media status, and commercial viability remains a constant challenge, what CNA has accomplished will contribute to our positioning of Singapore as a global media city. Likewise, the growing reach of ZBNow, the on-line edition of LHZB, is about 2.4 mil per day in China. This will enable our Chinese press to tap Internet technology for entry into the huge Chinese market.

In addition, the Media Development Authority launched the Media 21 strategy in Jul 2003 to develop the film and TV sector. MDA had already initiated two major projects. One with Raintree Pictures Pte Ltd to co-fund the production of a minimum of 10 films over five years. This collaboration will help local and international film-makers to produce "Made by Singapore" films for local audience and the international market. The other project is the first made-by-Singapore TV series to be aired on MTV’s channels across Asia. This is a project by MDA, MTV and Mega Media Pte Ltd, a local production company. The 14 episode drama series would cost about $2million with about 75% of the budget expended in Singapore and utilising Singaporean talents. MDA and EDB are supporting projects involving National Geographic and Discovery Channels which outsourced production thus spawning new opportunities to local production companies. MDA is also promoting digital media and interactive game development. For instance, the first Interactive TV Content Creation Centre in the Asia Pacific region was officially opened in July this year to create, validate, test and debug iTV applications. To further support the emergence of a strong media industry, we are also investing in a state-of-art media infrastructure called Fusionpolis at One-North. Fusionpolis is the first work-live-play-learn development in Singapore catering to the media, infocomm and education industry. When completed by end 2005 it will provide the ideal setting for both local and international media players seeking a customized environment and support for a wide range of media enterprises. It will add a lively buzz to the media sector.

Are we moving in the right direction towards a global media city? My answer is "Yes, we are". Will we get there? I believe we will. But there is no assurance that every investment will pay dividends. We have to venture. Along the way, we will encounter obstacles, competition and other pitfalls. We may falter but we must try. The Economic Review Committee has identified the media sector as a cornerstone of our creative industries, which would be a new source of economic vitality and growth. We will work towards this objective in the Singapore way. As key local media players, I would like to leave you with the challenge of how you can help to strengthen the local media sector and attract and retain even more international media to transform Singapore into a "global media city".

Thank you.