Singapore 2025

Volume 88: No 5

Thursday 20 October 2011

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SINGAPORE

________

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Moulmein-Kallang): Sir, may I seek a point of clarification from the Member of Aljunied. First, I am glad that the Member found some basis to agree with me, but what I was saying is that we should be building a social compact built on trust and I called for a greater sharing of information from the Government in relation to fulfilling the trust. But that is a far cry from saying that the Government is indirectly controlling the mainstream media which is replete with misinformation and lies. So, I like the Member to please clarify, first, is he saying that the mainstream media is replete with misinformation and lies, and if so, what is the basis.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, Sir, in response, I think the Member Mr Edwin Tong has completely misread my speech, I would be happy to give him a copy after this.

Ms Sim Ann: The hon. Member Mr Pritam Singh has quoted me as talking about the importance of participation of voters and rationality having the upper hand. I wish I could take credit for that statement but, in fact, I was quoting from Mr Goh Choon Kang, a former MP and commentator whom I respect very much. I think credit has to go where it is due. And having made such a passionate speech about combating misinformation, I am sure the Member will agree with me.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, I am not sure the Member has answered the question.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, Sir, the main reason why I suggested to the Member that I will be happy to give him my speech is because when he reads my speech, he will understand that I am arguing, I am talking about perceptions. At no point did I say the mainstream media peddles lies so I think the Member should just see me later and take my speech.

3.40 pm

________

4.37 pm

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much. I refer to the hon. Member Ms Indranee Rajah’s request for me to clarify, I beg your pardon. It was not a clarification. She wanted to know my opinion about how I felt, whether the mainstream media was biased or not. Now, I wish the Member had stuck to some of the points that I made about the speech about my proposals for this Government to improve communication with Singaporeans, rather than ask me what my view as to whether the mainstream media biased or not, was. Now, be that as it may, let me just go through two points that I made in the speech again for the sake of clarification, nothing more.

I refer to the comments of the chief editor of The Straits’ Times last year again and this is what he said. “We are aware. People say we are Government mouthpiece or that we are biased.” First point. Second point. The remarks of former President Nathan in his memoirs, Page 459, “Privately, I was conscious that another outbreak of serious displeasure with The Straits’ Times could well result in demands for heads roll or a return to the old idea of putting in a Government team.”

Now, never mind what Pritam Singh thinks. What do we say about the comments made by the chief editor of The Straits’ Times and our former President? Now, the fact of the matter is, there are Singaporeans — and I am sure Members in their heart of hearts will know that — many Singaporeans are concerned that because issues are not addressed in the mainstream media across the political spectrum, you have popularity gaining online and the biggest loser in all of these is the Government, not Pritam Singh, not the Opposition but ordinary Singaporeans who actually want to hear diverse perspectives, diverse views.

So, I hope the Member, instead of asking me for my opinion on things, can suggest to the Government what it can do to improve communication between itself and ordinary Singaporeans. Thank you.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Sir, a point of clarification. The hon. Member for Aljunied had put forward a proposal. The proposal was to address a particular concern. The concern was that there is a perception, or he said there is a perception that the mainstream media is controlled. He has cited two examples, the chief editor of SPH, being aware that people say, meaning that is what is people think; President Nathan’s quote – that is what people think.

But the Member of Parliament is putting forward a proposal to have certain Acts which have extremely important provisions. So, all I was seeking was clarification whether that Member believes the reason for these Acts. In other words, do you believe that the mainstream media is controlled and is that why you are putting forward the proposal for these Acts?

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have to repeat what the focus of my speech was when I made it just now —

Mr Speaker: I suggest you keep it short.

Mr Pritam Singh: Yes, Sir. I basically suggested ways in which the Government can foster an informed and engaged citizenry. And I divided the speech into two parts: I first assessed the mainstream media landscape which directly affects the online world. Now, that is my contention. Now, if the Member does not believe that what occurs in the mainstream media has no effect on the online media, then I am not sure how far I can take this argument.

Secondly, I very clearly informed this House that there are a number of legislation that the Government can consider to actually improve the situation insofar as lies and misinformation occurs and this is really a reflection of the President’s Address and MICA’s Addendum to that Address. They are not referring to the mainstream media. They are referring to the nexus — They are referring, I beg your pardon, to the online media. I am suggesting that there is a connection and the Government would do well to pay heed to that connection. This is not about Pritam Singh’s views on the mainstream media.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Sir, thank you for allowing me to seek a clarification. Mr Singh is putting forward a position about perceptions of mainstream media. There are many ways of avoiding an answer to the question and Mr Singh has tried a number of them. The question is a simple one. It is very important to know what Mr Singh thinks because a whole series of proposals are being put forward as to how the Government should deal with these perceptions. A Member of Parliament when asked a direct question as to what he believes in, should either say he is prepared to answer or should simply tell the truth which is that, “I am not prepared to answer the question”.

Mr Pritam Singh: I think the Law Minister would know better than I how to answer a question in Parliament because he has been around here longer than I have. But I can only answer a question with my hand on my heart. I am not here to score a political point. I am not here to suggest that the Government is doing something wrong. But what I am saying is that there is scope for this Government to reflect and more importantly, reflect on the words of the former Foreign Minister, the man who occupied this seat that this Member currently occupies. And he said that “the PAP needs to transform itself” and here you have, a backbencher who has stood up and suggested to the Government in all sincerity not to score political points but just to suggest to the Government that there is scope for improvement. And if they need any advice or any suggestions, anything of that sort, I am sure I am happy to provide them. But I am not here to score a political point or to teach someone how a question ought to be answered or not. This is not my intention. And if the Member thinks that answer is so important that it will have some effect on the real Singapore society then I think he is mistaken.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, the point is a very simple one and it is this. Does the Member believe that the mainstream media is controlled, purveys lies and dishonest opinions? Why is it important to know that? When Members speak here, their personal views and their integrity to speak their personal views and speak from the heart, there are no games that need to be played. The question is not about other people’s perceptions only. It is a very simple question capable of simple answer. What do you believe in? Then, we have a basis to move forward. Why is it important to say what you believe in? As an elected Member of Parliament, you come here and express your views, you got to put your hand on your heart and say, “This is what I believe in”. That does not require years of experience as a parliamentarian. That simply requires telling the truth.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh, will you state your belief, otherwise we will move on.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, can I first make a clarification? Is the Minister suggesting I am lying?

Mr K Shanmugam: I am simply saying that Mr Singh does not want to answer the question.

Mr Pritam Singh: Well, I think I will be running over ground that I have already gone over. I essentially am saying that this Government can do better. Now, I am saying that with my hand on my heart.

Mr Speaker: Gentlemen, we will move on. Dr Ng Eng Hen.

________

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much. I make reference to Mr Desmond Lee’s comments about the Freedom of Information Legislation. I do not for one minute suggest any law that the Government passes, does not have a flipside to it. I think it was a proposal that was put forward. The Government is free to investigate whether this can actually be effective for Singapore. The Member spoke of an article in The Guardian. I will just show him that there are other cases where FOI Legislation has been seen as a great benefit to the country, and unlike the way he represented the situation, it is not a case of people walking into Ministries demanding information, harassing officials. That is not the image of a Freedom of Information Legislation and I wanted to clarify that.

In response to the article about The Guardian, I would advise him to have a read of The Parliamentarian. It is a magazine which is found on the book trolley in the Parliament library. This is the second – not the latest edition, it was an edition before that — and there are interesting articles on the Freedom of Information Act. Now, I am not going to go into them but he will very quickly realise that there could be more benefits than disbenefits.

6.22 pm

________

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I will be very brief. I like to address this clarification to the Minister and his capacity as the Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts. With regard to the Minister’s remark that he would like Singaporeans to come forward and co-create policies, I may have belabored the point. I think all Members would know what I am driving at now. It is really the freedom of information legislation. Can I request from the Minister whether his Ministry would consider at least looking at the both pros and cons of such legislation and to find out whether it is suitable for Singapore especially in this era where people want more transparency, more accountability from the Government.

Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Certainly, the Government will consider all necessary legislation either existing or new ones that we have to amend in order to achieve some of the desired outcomes. Let me share with the Member some information which I have obtained about the Freedom of Information Act about its practice in other countries. We know that while theoretically, the Act will allow individuals more access to government information, in practice there are typically also important exceptions to information access. In the UK for example, Sir, I have been informed that, the Government may refuse where the disclosure of classified information that may endanger certain public interests or if it is too costly to retrieve the information. So, this means that individuals are usually only able to acquire unclassified information. So, we have to bear that in mind.

In Singapore, Sir, unclassified information is already released on various platforms. And Mr Singh has mentioned, the effort by MICA to put data online progressively, and on the websites of public bodies and periodic press releases. This incremental value of freedom of information legislation may be limited but I agree with him that we need to study all possible formulations of the Act or other existing Acts that may help us to achieve the outcome that we want.

6.52 pm

________