Debated in Parliament on 10 May 2021.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, last Thursday, Singapore Press Holdings Limited (SPH) announced its proposal to restructure and transfer its media business to a Company Limited by Guarantee (CLG) to secure its long-term viability. My Ministry has voiced the Government's support for SPH's proposal and committed to support the media business as it builds capabilities and adapts for a digital future.
Today, I will bring Members through the key considerations behind these decisions: first, the importance of local news media to our nation and how we have upheld it through our history; second, the Government's reasons for supporting SPH's proposal; and third, our commitment to help our local news media adapt and thrive in the digital era.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a high-quality, professional and respected media reporting news by Singaporeans for Singaporeans is essential to the fabric of our nation. Our local media is keenly attuned to our unique circumstances as a small city-state, an open economy and a multi-racial society. They help interpret global events through a distinctively Singaporean lens, analysing their impact on our lives. This is ever more crucial in an era of heightened geopolitical contestation. The local media also express our identity, values and priorities so that the world gets a perspective from Singapore itself and not through the filter of others.
Domestically, the local media not only report on events and developments but also publish a balanced range of views to inform the national debate and help foster a national consensus, not allowing disagreements to deepen into divisions in our society. They help to sustain the common ground in our multi-racial and multi-religious society whilst preserving the voice of each of our communities through the vernacular media and they write "the first draft of our history", as Mr Goh Chok Tong put it in 1995, serving as an authoritative record of our collective experience as a people, giving future generations of Singaporeans a sense of how we saw the world, what was important to us and how we built tomorrow's Singapore.
The local news media fulfil this role while upholding high standards of accuracy, objectivity and balance. These are traits that are ever more scarce in the raucous global information landscape, especially online. The local media help to distinguish fact from falsehood, substance from posture, "what is high from what is low", as Mr Lee Kuan Yew put it in 1998.
As our nation faces increasingly complex challenges and trade-offs, our local media provide a highly credible flow of information and analysis upon which we form collective decisions.
COVID-19 vividly exemplified this. In the pandemic, Singaporeans looked to our local newspapers and channels as their trusted sources of critical information. In a 2020 survey by the British pollster YouGov, seven in 10 Singaporeans said they trusted the local media's reporting on COVID-19. In the UK, by comparison, YouGov found that only three in 10 trusted the information on COVID-19 in British newspapers.
In 2021, the Edelman trust barometer reported Singaporeans' trust in local media at 62% – above the global average of 51% and above the US, which is 45%; and UK and France, which were both at 37%.
It is critical to maintain this trust. Our local media industry has strived to do so while adapting to changing industry trends and commercial imperatives. Because of its importance to the national interest, the Government has been an active steward in this evolutionary process to ensure the vitality and viability of our local media industry. Let me cite two examples.
In 1984, SPH was formed through a merger of the English, Chinese and Malay language papers, with the Tamil press brought under its umbrella later in 1995. The primary aim of this merger nearly four decades ago was to preserve the vernacular media. The Government could see that the vernacular papers would come under greater financial pressure over the years with the gradual shift towards English.
As Mr Lee Kuan Yew explained at Lianhe Zaobao's 80th anniversary in 2003, "My worry as Prime Minister was how to preserve at least one quality Chinese newspaper and sustain it over the long term when the trend in education was towards English."
The merger reduced duplication of overheads and costs of competition, and enabled the SPH newspapers to achieve economies of scale and greater commercial viability.
Between 2000 and 2005, the print and broadcast industries launched into more direct competition but subsequently re-consolidated. Initially, SPH and Mediacorp were allowed to enter each other's main businesses, with the trend towards convergence between print and broadcast. The hope was that greater competition between them would spur both to develop better local content and retain local audiences against rising foreign competition.
The competition was fierce but ultimately the model did not prove to be viable. Against the backdrop of the dotcom crash and SARS, the industry was rationalised in 2004 to preserve the viability of the two companies; one a core broadcaster and the other a core newspaper group.
Sir, today, yet again, our local news media is at a watershed. Sweeping structural changes in the media and advertising industries caused by technological advances and the Internet have severely disrupted the traditional business model that relied on print advertising revenue. The competition for eyeballs has intensified. In the borderless online space, our local news media must now compete not just with international news organisations but also entertainment providers and user-generated content.
The cost of producing quality news content remains high but revenues have plummeted. Global print advertising revenue is decreasing by 7% year on year. Meanwhile, news aggregators and other news providers are now able to provide so-called "free news services" without the cost of maintaining a high-quality newsroom.
Though digital ads are growing, it is the digital platforms like social media and search engines that capture the lion's share of the revenue.
Though the demand for quality news has not diminished, monetising digital initiatives is challenging and the revenues of quality news platforms all over the world are falling sharply with little prospect of relief.
Just last week on World Press Freedom Day, the executive director of the World Association of News Publishers, Andrew Heslop, published an article quite aptly titled "Media across the globe fighting immediate and existential threats". He warned, "Many of the difficult questions facing the news industry are underpinned by an inability to predict a general economic model that will guarantee a future for quality, professional journalism... The harsh reality: public interest reporting simply does not convert to advertising dollars."
For many media companies, the economic fall-out of COVID-19 was the final straw. An article in the Columbia Journalism Review described it as "The Journalism Crisis Across the World". Most publications are now running deficits and many newsrooms are shrinking, even closing. More than a quarter of American newspapers have disappeared in the last 15 years, reducing the number of newsroom jobs by half. In the UK, more than half the country is no longer served by their own local newspapers. Southeast Asia has seen well-known newspapers change hands, restructure or shut down in recent years. The Jakarta Globe ceased printing and went fully online in 2015 and the Philippine Star had a majority stake acquired by the telecommunications group, PLDT.
Ours is a small local market with just two main local news media organisations, SPH and Mediacorp. While there are potential synergies and opportunities for collaboration between them, we can ill afford the convulsions and closures we have seen elsewhere, with a consequential loss of diversity and choice in our media landscape.
The response of media companies across the world has been varied, reflecting their own social and political contexts.
Many have resorted to cost cutting to survive. News Corp, one of the largest media groups in the world, recorded a US$1.5 billion loss in 2020. It is now embarking on a consolidation exercise which will likely entail major cost cuts and job losses.
Even digital news sites which have ridden the wave of Internet media have not been spared. Popular site, Buzzfeed, which claimed a greater online audience than the print circulation of any single newspaper, has never made a profit and was compelled to abort its global expansion plans last year.
Some publications have received life support from wealthy financial backers or funds. Billionaires have acquired established newspapers for philanthropic or other motivations.
The Washington Post was bought by Jeff Bezos of Amazon in 2013, after 80 years of ownership by the Graham family, which had sustained the paper partly on the proceeds of its Kaplan education business. In the six years before the sale, the paper's operating revenue fell by 44%.
The South China Morning Post (SCMP) was owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp until 1993, when it was acquired by Malaysian real estate tycoon Robert Kuok. In 2016, it was acquired by the Alibaba Group.
With the largesse of Alibaba, SCMP lifted the paywall on its articles and was reported to have increased its international reach more than fourfold within three years. Yet, it remained loss-making.
In 2020, SCMP restored the paywall and subscription model, acknowledging that the "advertising model is no longer enough to sustain high-quality news".
Other major newspapers now owned by billionaires include the Los Angeles Times. Even hedge funds have got into the act. Alden Global Capital acquired over 200 US newspapers, with extensive lay-offs and cost-cutting measures.
Some newspapers have received funding from non-profit organisations. The Guardian in the UK has been owned by the Scott Trust since 1936. It has done well against global competition – nearly two-thirds of its readers come from outside the UK. But in 2020, after making a £25 million pound loss even after drawing from the Trust, The Guardian announced plans to cut 12% of its workforce saying that "we face unsustainable annual losses in future years unless we take decisive action."
Even the rare papers that are profitable are under continuing pressure. The Wall Street Journal has had to make numerous changes to its operating model to keep afloat. While investing in a special innovation team of 150 employees, it has also had to thin out its print edition and lay off staff as recently as 2016. The New York Times has done especially well in making the digital pivot, recently reaching 7.5 million subscribers in 2020, though it too saw ad revenue plunge by 26% the same year.
The New York Times' success is not easy to replicate. Beyond digital transformation, it commands a global attention that is difficult for our media, writing from the perspective of a small country, to emulate.
It is also noteworthy that the New York Times and Washington Post tripled their digital subscriptions during the period of the Trump administration. Meanwhile, US metropolitan dailies of comparable size, like the LA Times, Chicago Tribune and San Francisco Chronicle, have seen significant falls in circulation, in part because of "subscription fatigue" among readers.
The Financial Times (FT), which enjoys the advantage of being a specialist newspaper, employs rigorous data analysis to tailor its coverage and subscription offers at its target segments. It has a small but affluent readership, exemplified by FT's weekly lifestyle magazine called "How to Spend It", with strong advertising appeal. Still, in 2015, the Japanese media group Nikkei bought FT from Britain's Pearson. So, even a successful newspaper is susceptible to takeover.
Governments around the world have recognised the news media as a public good that merits direct public funding. Public funding of broadcast media is well-known. Less well-known is public funding of print media, but it has a long tradition in European countries.
The French government spends hundreds of millions of euros annually to support the press, including prominent papers like Le Monde and Le Figaro. It has done so for over half a century, with annual subsidies at times exceeding a billion euros.
Scandinavian governments too have supported their newspapers for decades, both through direct subsidies and tax breaks. In 2020 alone, the Norwegian Media Authority gave press subsidies of 43 million euros, while Sweden rendered a 65-million euro aid package to buffer the impact of the pandemic.
In Singapore, we provide annual funding for public service broadcasting to Mediacorp. Last year, we also provided SPH Media with over $30 million through the national Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) and we were prepared to do more if the need arose.
So, in sum, the global news media industry is under severe structural pressure and there is no universal solution. A few have succeeded; some are struggling; many have failed. The sources of support – be it public, private, philanthropic or others – have varied widely. And at this critical juncture, SPH Media must similarly chart its own course to revise and, if necessary, re-invent its business model for the digital age.
Against these industry headwinds, SPH has held out longer than most.
In fact, SPH's overall reach and readership has never been higher. SPH's papers' circulation has grown by 5% from 2017 to 2020. In fact, within this period, The Straits Times' print and digital circulation has grown by about 20%.
SPH has also made significant investments of about $50 million a year for the last five years to build digital capabilities and grow its readership. It has augmented newsrooms with a wider range of tech capabilities, such as product development, digital content production, data analytics and audience development. It has modified its operations to generate content round the clock and deployed it on a wider variety of social media platforms, including Instagram and Telegram. SPH has launched new platforms for readers to engage its correspondents and experts and has been recognised internationally for its excellent data visualisation and interactive graphics, multimedia and photojournalism.
Last year, it emerged as the biggest winner at the Asian Media Awards, with The Straits Times and the Chinese Media Group picking up accolades in breaking news, infographics, feature photography and newspaper design, to name a few.
So, in short, these are not news platforms that are declining in quality or readership. On the contrary, like Mediacorp in broadcasting, SPH papers continue to be trusted and valued sources of news that are well read which is a tribute to the professionalism of our journalists.
Their challenge today stems from an inability to monetise their gains in attracting and retaining readers on digital platforms.
Despite rising readership, SPH's media business has been steadily losing revenue. SPH announced last week that its media business had lost half its operating revenue in the past five years and posted its first ever loss of $11.4 million in 2020. And that loss would have been deeper without the Government's JSS grant.
Looking ahead, SPH expects these trends to persist and widen. Print advertising revenue will continue falling as media consumption progressively shifts online. Rising digital advertising revenue will not compensate for the fall in print advertising revenue. And there is limited scope to grow digital subscriptions given our small domestic market and the global competition.
These secular trends are undeniable. They affect SPH, Mediacorp and the global media industry. And the adverse effects will be compounded by the lingering economic impact of COVID-19, with businesses cutting ad spending and consumers reluctant to pay for content.
SPH has been under persistent pressure to account to shareholders for the anaemic financial performance of its media business. Hence, the company has implemented several cost-cutting and retrenchment exercises in recent years. But SPH has assessed that any further cuts would impair its ability to maintain quality journalism.
SPH has also spoken of its constraints as a listed company to make significant and sustained investments in their digital and newsroom capabilities, which may not yield near-term payoffs.
Hence, under the current structure, there is a serious risk that SPH's media capabilities will be hollowed out.
Without sustained investment in capacity building and a digital pivot, its quality and circulation will fall. This, in turn, will worsen financials and cause further disinvestment. And the immediate pressure will inevitably be on our vernacular papers, some with relatively small circulations, which would have a profound detrimental impact on the multi-racial fabric of our society.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is the sobering picture of what lies ahead if we fail to act now and take proactive steps. Without a responsible and high quality local media, the quality of our public debate and discourse will be compromised and we will slowly but inexorably become less cohesive as a society.
Given what is at stake, the Government must take a long-term view and adopt measures to secure the sustainability of our local media.
The Government therefore carefully studied the proposal from SPH.
SPH proposes to restructure and transfer the ownership of its media business to a Company Limited by Guarantee (CLG). It will first form a new subsidiary, transfer the media-related businesses and properties to the subsidiary and capitalise the subsidiary with $80 million of cash and $30 million worth of SPH shares and REITs. Subsequently, if SPH shareholders give their approval, the subsidiary will be transferred to the CLG.
The CLG will be separate from the listed company, no longer run by the SPH management. It will operate as a revenue-seeking business, subject to the usual commercial disciplines. However, any operating surplus will be ploughed back into the media business, rather than distributed to shareholders as dividends. In that sense, it will be "not-for-profit" to the members of the CLG.
This concept of a CLG run with commercial discipline is not new for us. There are several examples, including our Universities, The Esplanade and Gardens by the Bay.
SPH's proposal is not a panacea for the challenges faced by its news media business. But it is an essential first step if the media business is to adapt to the digital and commercial realities of the industry. The Government therefore supports SPH's restructuring proposal and is willing to provide funding support to the CLG. Let me summarise our thinking.
Sir, a high quality and trusted national media, with an instinctive understanding of our national interests and constraints, is essential to Singapore. Throughout our history, the Government has aimed to develop and sustain such a media industry in Singapore.
However, the current SPH model of a news media business within a listed company is no longer viable. While the media business' traditional revenues streams are declining sharply, significant investments are needed to build digital and other capabilities for the longer term.
A Company Limited by Guarantee (CLG) is one model to remove the news media business from the constraints of a listed company, while the news business under the CLG invests in strategic imperatives.
But the CLG will still have to find new sources of funding to meet the expected financial shortfalls in the news business.
The Government is willing to help fund the proposed CLG – while ensuring fiscal discipline and accountability – in areas like digital innovation and capability development, as part of a long-term sustainable business plan.
We already have a similar financing model with Mediacorp, our core national broadcaster, which has been working well.
Having such national broadcasters, newspaper publishers and online news platforms is a public good that benefits the whole of society. Although the business and financing model will change, the Government does not intend nor expect this to affect the relationship between MCI and the SPH newsroom.
The Government is mindful that our local news media must remain credible institutions that are trusted by Singaporeans and that it remains the responsibility of the editors and journalists in SPH Media to report news and diverse opinions objectively, and from a Singaporean point of view.
Sir, looking ahead, the CLG’s success will be determined by three key factors. First, strong leadership, with the support of its stakeholders, to set the strategic vision and execute the organisational transformation. Second, a robust business strategy that can be sustained under the new structure with the requisite resources. Third, a strong and capable team of professionals in the newsrooms, who will maintain the high standards that we have come to expect of this cherished national news organisation.
In this regard, the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) is a key regulatory instrument that will apply to the news entities under the CLG. The NPPA was introduced in 1974. It places restrictions on the ownership and control of local newspaper companies. Among other requirements, newspaper companies like SPH are required to issue two classes of shares: ordinary shares and management shares.
Ordinary shareholders can each hold no more than 5% of the company’s shares except with the approval of the Minister. This prevents excessive influence over local newspapers from any single source, local or foreign.
Management shareholders have special voting rights on resolutions relating to the appointment of directors and staff of the newspaper company. The issuance of management shares and the appointment of directors must be approved by the Minister.
The intent has always been for these management shares to be held by reputable and established institutions, so that the stewardship of the newspaper is entrusted to entities with an abiding interest in and commitment to Singapore’s stability and success.
Currently, the management shareholders of SPH are OCBC, Great Eastern, UOB, DBS, Singtel, NTUC Income, Temasek via Fullerton Pte Ltd, NUS and NTU. As SPH restructures its media operations, we want to ensure that its management shareholders continue serving as custodians of the CLG.
I have therefore met and consulted the representatives of the management shareholders. They have all agreed to form the CLG and to be its founding members. This will ensure that our local news media will remain in the hands of trusted institutions with a long-term stake in Singapore. In due course, the membership will be expanded to include newer and more diverse institutions as stakeholders of the CLG.
One important and immediate decision for the CLG is the appointment of the Chairman of its Board. I also discussed this with the management shareholders. They have all agreed that, given the national importance of this undertaking and the scale of the challenge, the Chairman should be Mr Khaw Boon Wan. With his high standing and more than 25 years of public service experience in various senior appointments, Mr Khaw will be able to provide strong strategic leadership for the CLG. I am pleased to inform Members that Mr Khaw has agreed to be the Chairman of the CLG, and he will be sharing his thoughts on its way forward in due course.
To ensure the long-term viability of the enterprise, the Government also stands ready to provide the CLG with funding in areas like digital innovation and capability development. We want to ensure the CLG has the wherewithal to innovate, build digital and other essential capabilities, and confidently take on new challenges.
The new media company must have a long-term, sustainable business model with different revenue sources, including traditional advertising and subscription revenues, complemented by Government funding and contributions from its management shareholders and benefactors as other components.
We expect that after the transfer of the media business, the CLG will formulate detailed proposals on its strategic plan to build the business. This will form the basis for Government funding and support.
On the regulatory front, the Government will maintain the safeguards hitherto placed on the media business under the NPPA.
Subject to shareholder approval, after the restructuring is completed and the media business is transferred to the CLG, MCI will lift the shareholding controls imposed on the listed SPH entity. The NPPA will then apply to the new media company, under the CLG’s charge. The NPPA will not apply to the CLG, but appropriate safeguards will be incorporated in the constitution of the CLG to ensure that the CLG structure achieves its purpose and fosters the objectives of the NPPA framework; and that its members and directors will remain committed to Singapore’s stability and success.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we want the news media business to succeed in this critical transition while continuing to fulfil its vital role in our society.
As I said at the beginning of this Statement, a high-quality, professional and trusted media, with news reported by Singaporeans for Singaporeans, is essential to the fabric of our nation.
That mission statement remains unchanged. Within the framework of the NPPA, the local media operate independently of the Government. They report and analyse the news fully and objectively, not holding back bad news, nor advancing any singular ideological view or agenda, but focused on Singapore’s interest. The Government and the media will not see eye-to-eye on every issue and incident, but that is to be expected.
That is how SPH and Mediacorp, have operated hitherto, and that is how the Government expects the CLG to continue to operate after the proposed restructuring. The CLG must maintain the reputation and high level of trust that SPH has built with generations of readers, domestically and internationally.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the restructuring of SPH is a watershed in the evolution of our local news media. But we are convinced that it is essential if our news media are to survive as high-quality news outlets. And the Government will do our part to sustain a trusted news media in Singapore.
Sir, our news media are not just economic entities. They are cherished institutions that reflect our values; whose "past, present and future are intrinsically tied to this nation", as Prime Minister Lee put it at The Straits Times’ 170th anniversary.
The newsrooms are, and must continue to be, home to talented editors and journalists, whose professionalism and diligence have built credibility and trust in our newspapers.
As 19-year-old "A" level graduate Keng Xin Yi said in today's Straits Times and, I quote, "It is important to keep SPH Media alive and motivated to produce quality newspapers every day. ST has been serving Singaporeans with diligence and high standards, educating us from the time when we knew little about the world. I hope we can express our gratitude by supporting and respecting these dedicated journalists. Together we can keep our source of knowledge going and keep our ST alive. I want ST to be a part of the lives of my future children and grandchildren too."
Sir, the success of this restructuring and the future of our local news media, turn ultimately on our journalists' commitment to this mission and the support of our citizens like Xin Yi. I would like to conclude by assuring our journalists, and all Singaporeans, of this Government's abiding support for this critical national endeavour.
Mr Pritam Singh.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have a few clarifications for the Minister. Before that, I thank him for his Statement, which contained a lot of information or some information at least, that the public has heard for the first time today and here in the House.
I have a few questions.
First, when did the Government first inform SPH that it was prepared to extend grants to support its media business?
Secondly, what is the size of the funding that Government has pencilled yearly to support the SPH CLG? Does the Government aim to cap the grants it extends, with the expectation that CLG will also secure other sources of funding from the private sector, for example?
The third question is with respect to some public documents that were released by SPH last week. It was decided that the SPH contribution towards the CLG would be, I quote, "arrived at after considering various factors, including the potential funding requirements of the media business for a few years". Does the Ministry consider this contribution to be a reasonable one and how did it come to this conclusion?
My final two questions: what structures will the Government insist on to ensure the independence of the SPH CLG from possible Government's interference and to foster a culture of editorial independence across its titles? And, finally, in view of the significant change in the sector, would the Government consider the formation of a Select Committee to allow members of the public and Singaporeans in particular to: (a) express what editorial standards they expect from the CLG, taxpayer-funded mainstream media; and (b) to express their views on how best the SPH CLG can ensure editorial independence from any government of the day?
Sir, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his series of questions. They span a wide range of issues. I will attempt to give him a comprehensive response. But I imagine this is going to be further developed in subsequent clarifications.
First, on the issue of timing – when did we inform SPH that we were willing to fund SPH? As I said in my Statement, the Government has always taken the position that we are willing to support investments in capability development. And then, it is up to the respective organisations to develop their plan and to put forward their proposals to us. In the case of SPH, specifically, as I mentioned, last year, they received the JSS, which was part of the national scheme. In addition, we were prepared to offer extra help if it was required, but the restructuring proposal was put to us; which then, leads to the next question about other sources of funding and whether Government funding to the CLG will be capped.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would say that it is premature to specify the exact numbers that will go in, with regard to the Government funding. The reason for this is not because we are reluctant to talk about them, but it is simply because, first, this is still a matter before the shareholders of SPH. They have to decide whether they want to approve this. It is only after that that we can really get into a more detailed discussion.
So, the question of whether other sources of funding would be required, if the Leader of the Opposition heard in my speech earlier, not-for-profit does not mean that the entity does not pursue its business on a commercial basis. We fully expect the entity to seek out advertising revenue, circulation or subscription revenue and other sources of funding. But we fully expect that Government funding will be a component of that funding matrix for the CLG.
He asked if the SPH contribution which has been spelt out – which includes the transfer of two property assets which are related to the media business and also some other operating businesses which are linked to the media, in addition to the $80 million of cash and $30 million of SPH shares and REITs – he asked whether this is reasonable and why. Again, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to stress that because this is a matter that has to be put to the shareholders at an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM), I do not want to pre-empt any case that the management and the Board will make.
But I can say that our focus, the Government's focus, has been very clearly on the news media business and its viability, going forward. Whilst I am unable to say specifics about what the numbers look like in the near term – SPH has said some about how they think it will continue to widen in terms of its deficit – I can say that the medium- to long-term outlook remains challenging. And that is why we need to be clear that the Government will be prepared to come in to give support. But how much, how – I think these are the things that will need to be worked out in due course after the CLG has had the chance, subject to shareholders' approval, to then develop a business plan and put the proposal to us.
The Member asked about structures for editorial independence or ensuring a culture of editorial independence. I would venture that that culture already exists in Singapore in the news media. I think we do a disservice to our journalists and editors to suggest anything to the contrary. In fact, if you look at the overall outcome that we have achieved over the years, it speaks to, not just from external sources that validate by recognising the accomplishments of our local news media but, importantly, and this has a bearing on the Leader of the Opposition's last point on the Select Committee, because if I understand it correctly, it is about enabling people to express their views.
I would say Singaporeans have already expressed their views because, first, when it comes to trust surveys, Singapore scores highly. Singaporeans have been quick to point out that they trust our news media, both print and broadcast, and they have shared this. I cited the YouGov survey and also the Edelman Trust Report. I would add that even our local surveys, for example, by the IPS, validate this, saying that about 70% of Singaporeans, or seven out of 10, trust our local media. And that is at a higher level than the trust they accord to international media, I would add.
So, it is not just what they say though, it is also what they are doing. What are their habits, what are their preferences. In other words, how are they voting with, in this case, their eyeballs? The fact is, as I said, and I want to re-emphasise, the SPH news organisations, in aggregate, have not just maintained but they have grown their reach and readership, when you combine the digital and the physical. That would not be the case if Singaporeans did not feel that they could trust a news organisation.
So, I think the people have spoken and it is our job now to make sure that object of their trust continues to succeed.
I have a couple of supplementary questions for the Minister. First of all, the Government will provide funding to the new entity, the new CLG called SPH Media. It is reasonable, if you provide the funding, to have some expectations, to have some accountability, even to have some conditions. Can the Minister, perhaps, develop on what are some of the accountabilities or even the KPIs that the Government would expect from the new CLG in return for the funding?
And, of course, with that accountability, with that expectation, there could also be the criticism that, therefore, that is the way also of exerting control over the CLG. Could the Minister, perhaps, also expound on some measures that could be put in place to balance off between expecting accountability but yet, at the same time, having a hands-off approach and not necessarily shaping or influencing how the CLG would then do its business?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. First, on accountability and conditions or KPIs tied to the funding. Again, I want to start by saying this is still a matter that has to be approved by the shareholders of SPH before we can start talking about these matters in greater detail. But I can talk about it in terms of broad principles.
Clearly, and as I said in my Ministerial Statement, we want to do this – and by this, I mean the funding of the CLG – with financial discipline and accountability in areas like digital innovation and capability development. What does that mean? It means that if the funding is given for a specific purpose, then the expectation, and in this case is for building capabilities, for example. And the expectation must be that those capabilities are indeed developed. But it goes beyond that because the development of capabilities in the end is a means to a more important end. And that end is sustaining, if not growing, the attention, the readership and the following from Singaporeans. It is something that both Mediacorp and the SPH news groups have been doing with significant success over the years.
But, clearly, it is something that we would want them to continue to strive to achieve. Because at the end of the day, if you do not have the eyeballs, the attention of people, then, the effort, in a sense, will ring hollow. And our objective, when we talk about a trusted, professional, high quality news organisation, the ultimate measure of it, as I said in my response to the Leader of the Opposition, is in how our citizens respond to it and how much attention they give it – whether it is in terms of readership, dwell time; and this is especially so in the moment of crisis, which is when the truth and reliability of information becomes even more critical.
On the point about control, I think I had said some of this in my earlier response. First, let me acknowledge that it is inevitable that whenever you have a change, in this case, a structural change in the organisation, such concerns will naturally arise. It is inevitable and it is quite understandable. But as we deliberate on this and we discuss this in this Chamber, we also need to keep in mind where are we starting from when thinking about the future. We are starting from a position where we have two news organisations, media organisations: one a core newspaper group with radio and online presence; another, a core broadcaster with radio and online presence. So, some overlap but distinct core competencies.
These organisations have developed under our existing model. And what I mean by that is SPH is subject to the NPPA and the restrictions that go with it. Mediacorp gets funding from the Government in the form of public service broadcasting. In both cases, they have been able to pursue their editorial policy in a manner that has allowed them to win the trust of Singaporeans, as evinced by the various studies and surveys, and so on, and also the reading habits of Singaporeans.
So, if I may put it another way, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". So, we have something that is working. The part that is challenging is the financial model, in particular. The business must be given enough time to be able to transition to a more sustainable business model. And that is something that we are now committed to do by rendering support to the CLG but without changing the nature of the relationship that we have today between these news organisations and the Government and MCI.
Ms Jessica Tan.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Minister. The Minister spoke about the impact of digital disruptions on the news media industry. While digital investments and funding are important to maintain quality local news media, this clearly is not enough. In fact, SPH has actually grown its digital footprint as well as its viewership. The challenge has been viability.
So, what will be different for the CLG to achieve the digital pivot, that the Minister has said is required? A clear strategy to transform and to drive digital innovation is required and so, how will this new entity achieve that?
My second question is a different one but an important one to maintaining the quality of local journalism, and that is really its people. In this case, it is the journalists themselves as well as the experienced team that produces the content. So, what is being done to ensure that that this retention of talent is there, as well as, more importantly, the ability for the new entity to attract new talent required for it to do the pivots it requires?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for her questions which are both, I think, very important.
Perhaps, I will start with the people question first. One cannot talk about quality journalism without talking about quality journalists. It is indivisible. And indeed, when we talk about investing in the capability of our news media, this is one of the key attributes – the ability to attract, retain and develop journalistic talent which take our news media industry forward, both for the quality of its news reporting and also for its analysis of global and local events; and to be able to offer that distinctly Singapore perspective, which we need for all the reasons that I have outlined.
So, we are very clear that when it comes to the people element, it is something that must continue to be supported. How that is done is a matter that the company itself must take forward. And what I mean by this is, for example, if we think back to the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS), the objective was very simple – to prevent attrition of capabilities that have been developed and that are needed for the future.
But what we need in the context of SPH now is not just the prevention of attrition but actually, the ability to build on that capability which I think is the point that the Member makes as well. And so, I think this is an area the new CLG Chairman, the Board and the management will be seized with. And I would imagine that as part of their strategic business review that human dimension is going to be key because ultimately, that is what sustains the news media.
Having said that, the earlier point about what will be different, and I agree with the Member, financial support or money alone is not enough. I think really, it is about what you are using these resources for and therefore, what will be different.
As I pointed out, I think the current structure, whilst there has been a considerable effort on the part of SPH to pivot to digital and they have made the investments I have mentioned, about $50 million a year over five years, but really, they need to do more and they need to do it in a more purposeful and quick way. I think that is something that if you talk to the editors and the journalists, they would say and that is also the experience that we see around the world.
Therefore, I think, first, the fact that you are now moving out of a listed company structure into a CLG model will give that company the opportunity to dedicate the resources it needs for this purpose. And that is where I think the support from Government will also be important.
I would say that the other thing is, again, I think the point that the Member makes – and the Member will be very familiar with this – is that it is not just about technology. It is how that technology is applied in the context of this vertical and how it is used to deliver a product that is valued by the customers, the readers and whether there are different ways to find new revenue sources arising from that. So, this is a very important area of work.
I know that within the current SPH system, they have put some degree of effort into it. But going forward, the CLG and the management will have to bring in talent – in addition to what they already have within – to address this in a very direct way and start making the decisive strategic moves in that regard. I think the ability to make such moves and then back them with the resources and then find the talent to back it up, these are all going to be important differentiating factors in the change that has been proposed under the restructuring.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Sir, we understand the severe commercial challenges faced by SPH Media as a standalone entity as a listed company and would require Government funding to put them on a more sustainable path.
I have two clarifications for the Minister. Firstly, how did the Government arrive at the decision that the CLG structure is the best option. The second clarification is, has the Government consider other options such as privatising SPH so that the media unit is not subject to the market returns pressure, very much like SMRT, or even like the Mediacorp approach where the Government support the company with annual public service broadcasting grants?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. How did we arrive at the CLG structure and were alternatives considered?
First, we have to be very clear how the proposal came about. This is the result of SPH management and Board assessing their business, in particular, the media business and its prospects going forward; and then, putting forward a proposal which, in their assessment, achieves best the objective of ensuring the viability and success of the media business going forward, freed from the constraints of a listed company and its reporting structures and so on. So, that is how it came about.
And this, I want to emphasise again, is a proposal that awaits shareholders' approval. So, I do not want to go into a detailed discussion on its merits. But as I have said quite clearly, the Government supports it. We are supporting it not because of the shareholder value proposition. That is for SPH and its management and its directors and independent financial advisers and independent directors to explain to their shareholders. We support it from the perspective of what needs to be done to secure the long-term sustainability of a quality, trusted news media in Singapore. That is the focus.
So, other ideas, whether it is privatisation and other formulations, I think these are questions that I am sure the Board and management would have considered. But I also want to point out that from the Government's point of view, the regulatory levellers are quite specific. They only pertain to decisions that affect the news media business in the way I have explained. So, I think the larger issues around the business, its viability, its decisions on what can be done for shareholder value, ultimately, is something that the Board and management have to decide on and propose to shareholders to agree.
I think the Member asked the question: is it possible for us to support the company in its present form, I assume, with something like public service broadcasting funding and so on.
Can it be considered? I think the answer is obviously yes. But is that a good model? I think it is debatable. Why is that debatable? Because I understand the intent of the Member. In other words, the business is within the listed company. It is having some challenges. Can we just direct the funding to that operation in that business for it to succeed?
The problem is, if we channel a certain amount of funding to the listed company and the listed company then makes profits and then it distributes dividends to its shareholders, the question that can be asked is: is this a case of taxpayers subsidising returns to shareholders? So, there is an issue there. And so, then it means, do we need to find other constructs to do with it. And I do not want to belabour the point but other than to say that I do not think it is a straightforward solution. I think it is fraught in its own way.
What we have before us is the proposal that the Board and management of SPH put to us after their own deliberations of various possibilities. Our lens is purely from the point of view of how do we ensure a quality, professional trusted news media continues to succeed in Singapore. And that is the basis on which we have expressed our approval for the restructuring.
Ms Sylvia Lim.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
First, I would like to say that I welcome the Minister's statement in his speech that the Government and SPH Media will not see eye-to-eye on matters and it is as it should be if the newspapers are to be credible to readers. I welcome that statement strongly.
At the same time, he has acknowledged that due to the proposed change in the funding, there are some concerns about the implications of Government funding on the editorial direction of the newspaper. And in the same breath, he just announced to us today that the Government and the management shareholders of SPH have agreed on the choice of the Chairman of the CLG to be Mr Khaw Boon Wan. I have some clarifications on this choice.
First, let me clarify that I am not questioning the personal integrity of Mr Khaw but the fact is that he is the former chairman of the People's Action Party and former Coordinating Minister for Infrastructure. So, I would like to ask Minister: first of all, the choice of Mr Khaw, although he said it was by agreement between the Government and the management shareholders, am I to assume that it was the Government's suggestion that Mr Khaw takes on this role and the management shareholders agreed to that suggestion?
The second question, does Minister not see this as a missed opportunity in the light of the major restructure that is coming up and some concerns about what this will mean for newspaper content? Is this not a missed opportunity where someone else who is not so closely linked to the Government could have been chosen to be the Chairman? Were any other candidates considered?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for her clarifications.
Let me just be very clear. I said in my Statement that the news media and the Government will not always see eye-to-eye. I will think the definition of a good news media or a credible news media is that it must always not see eye-to-eye, but it has the occasion when it is necessary to be able to do so. So, I want to be clear about that.
Second, I think the nub of her question really is that, with Mr Khaw Boon Wan being asked by the management shareholders to chair the CLG, whether this creates problems from the point of view of editorial independence. I presume that is the Member's main point.
Let us start where we are today. SPH, its current chairman is Dr Lee Boon Yang and he is a former Cabinet Minister. In SPH's history, they have had other Chairpersons who have either been ex-senior civil servants or ex-Cabinet Ministers. Mediacorp's Chairman today is an ex-senior civil servant. Yet, we are where we are today – and I do not wish to canvass arguments all over again – but we are where we are today in terms of the credibility of our media, the trust that Singaporeans have in our media, through this array of leadership. I think we should therefore be very clear that what matters is not a perceived political hue in the appointments, but rather in the substance of the character and capability of the people who are involved.
I think, in that regard, Mr Khaw Boon Wan is held in high standing in Singapore and also by many beyond Singapore. He has a proven track record of taking on difficult issues and working on them. This is one such issue. What you need is someone at the leadership level who has the gravitas, has the strategic vision and the experience in undertaking these sort of major tasks. Make no mistake about it – this is a major undertaking and it is one that is of national importance.
I think the choice of Mr Khaw Boon Wan is something that not just the Government but in fact the management shareholders were very keen on. As I said, it was a discussion that we had. This is not the kind of position for which we have a very long shortlist or that we would do a global search. In the end, you have to decide on the basis of what is needed, what are the attributes we seek and how do we go forward. That is what happened here.
And therefore, is this a missed opportunity? I think what would be a missed opportunity is, if we allow political considerations to prevent us from making the right decision, in terms of the right person for the job, to get it done. I think that is what we have sought to do.
Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as a consultant in the area of technology, media and telecommunications, I want to say that the proposed transfer to a non-profit structure for SPH away from the glare of investors' expectations seems to make sense and will give SPH more time to fundamentally transform. But, as said by the Minister, it is no panacea. I have two clarifications to ask of the Minister, building on some of the questions earlier raised by the Member Jessica Tan.
First, how will SPH maximise this opportunity for a fresh start? Which means, essentially, answering the question: what can you sell that is insightful, relevant and distinctive and provides an engaging audience experience, to whom and at what price? This will likely have to be consumer paid because advertising is not going to cut it. The fundamental source of competitive advantage here has become distribution and it has moved to the digital giants. And with what technology to support all this? How can you operate at a drastically lower level of cost in order to make money, including, for example, by moving to much more green-field tech platforms?
I recognise these are questions for the CLG, but I think what I would like to know is: is there an ambition within the CLG to think of SPH now more as a start-up to benefit from this fresh start, rather than incremental thinking?
How will the new entity be able to attract a visionary CEO in addition to talented journalists and editors but also tech people who see the noble mission of providing quality, independent journalism? In particular, can a bigger voice or a greater role be accorded to the internal staff, some of whom I know, have been pushing for change for a long time and love their jobs as SPH journalists in spite of the business uncertainty and in spite of all the accusations that they have partisan motives? They could have really good ideas under bold and inspiring leadership.
My second clarification is regarding vernacular newspapers. I would like to know if the preservation of Berita Harian and other vernacular newspapers will be an explicit condition for Government funding? Or if funding is given by other sources, will there be a mechanism to ensure that these vernacular newspapers, so important to our nation building, are explicitly retained?
Finally, I just want to say that journalism has always and will continue to benefit from various forms of subsidy, support and benevolence from various actors. Why? Because as Joseph Pulitzer once said, "Our republic and its press will rise or fall together." So, we do need solutions that enable high quality, independent journalism, not least local news and vernacular news, informing the communities about the events and people affecting their lives.
Minister, would you like to reply to those clarifications?
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for, firstly, the note of optimism that she has raised. Because in discussing this – the merits, the challenges, the concerns and so on – I think we must not lose sight of the fact that this is an opportunity for the organisation and the people within to embark on the journey that they have travelled on up to now, but with a new beginning. I think that is the key thing.
In considering that, I do want to make the point because the Member said, "Will this CLG behave like a start-up or will there be just incremental change?" I think the best way I would put it is this. You want the zest, the energy, the drive, the invention of a start-up, but you do not want to lose the credibility, the trust, the quality, the people that we have nurtured all through these years. So, we want to have our cake and eat it. We want to be able to do both.
And I think it is very important that we recognise that because it is not about jettisoning everything and starting from scratch. But neither is it about being so hidebound that we are not prepared to discard some of the older or long-held propositions from a business point of view in order to pursue new ideas. So, I think we need a bit of both, or rather we need a lot of both.
This is where I think, as the Member has mentioned, the staff, the people who are within, are just as important as the people who are without to be brought in, in due course, to complement the capability of the organisation. The people who have been with the organisation – the journalists, the editors, the other staff – they bring a very valuable perspective. I think that has to be a part of the equation going forward, just as we need to bring in, whether it is technology-oriented people but also others who will be able to contribute and complement. Therefore, I think the most important thing here is having a team; a team that brings together the best capabilities in order to maximise the chance of success for this new CLG venture.
I think this is something Mr Khaw Boon Wan and I am sure the team, would be very seized with, including the process of finding not just an appropriate CEO but filling other talent requirements within the organisation.
The Member raised another very important point which pertains to the vernacular media. As I said, the stresses that the industry is under today, in particular, SPH Media, means that if nothing were done, then the capacity within the newsrooms would diminish because cost cutting would be inevitable. I think amongst the first and most at-risk will be the vernacular media because they have got a smaller circulation. If you take a purely business logic to this, then I think the outcomes can be quite detrimental from a national cohesion point of view.
So, certainly, as I have said, we want to preserve the voice of our vernacular media. This is an important part of what my colleague Mr Edwin Tong has called the tapestry of Singapore society. We have to make sure that we pull that and ensure that that remains an important part of the overall entity that is the CLG and all its news media operations.
So, we would want to be very clear about this aspect. But how they achieve it is a different matter. If I can put it another way, the Member's questions revolved around: what are they going to do? How are they going to do it? Whom are they going to do it for? What price are they going to impose and the financial model?
All of these are very important questions but they are not questions that the Government should be answering. Because ultimately, we have to put it to the Board and management, and for them to come back and tell us exactly what they have in mind, what are the pivots and changes, maybe even the reinvention they envisage. And, in that context, what we need to do or what we can do – from the Government – to support.
I see many hands. It looks like many Members want to be part of this narrative, this important narrative. I ask for the Members to keep their clarifications short so that I can call on both sides of the House and give each Member who wants to speak a chance to speak. So, clarifications very short, please. Mr Leon Perera.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So, very briefly, as we have been enjoined to do, I think with this latest move, the Government seems to acknowledge that commercially, it is very challenging to run a media operation, hence, the transition to the CLG structure. Given this context and given the NPPA regime where broadsheet newspapers need to obtain NPPA licences, going forward, will the Government consider practising a light touch in awarding licences to Singaporean-owned companies who feel that they might want to enter this space and give it a go? Because, they feel that they can innovate and somehow overcome these commercial hurdles as some media organisations in other parts of the world, like The Guardian in the UK, for example, have done.
Secondly, I welcome the Minister's emphasis that the new entity must be seen to be non-partisan, objective and independent. To that end, would the Minister consider – either the CLG doing this or the Government doing this – to set KPIs that are regularly measured to ensure that the public actually believes in the independence of the new CLG, in its editorial independence, and to measure that regularly, given that taxpayer monies will be pumped in?
And lastly, I would just like to ask a question about how senior editorial appointments in the new CLG will be made. In his memoirs, the former chief of SPH, Mr Cheong Yip Seng wrote on page 432, and I quote, "the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act gives the Government veto powers over who gets to edit newspapers". He is referring to his experience some time ago. I asked a Parliamentary Question more recently about whether the Government plays a role in newspaper editorial —
Mr Perera, could you just ask your clarification?
Yes. So, it appears that the Government does not. My question would be: would the Minister consider creating a structure within the CLG to ensure that senior editorial appointments are seen to be independent and safeguarded from any kind of influence whatsoever, and that is seen to be the case?
I thank the Member for his questions. The first is NPPA and whether we would have a light touch and allow more entries into the market. First of all, I think when we are addressing this, let us diagnose the situation correctly. As I said, the issue is not around NPPA or no NPPA restrictions. It is not around Government funding or not Government funding. It is actually a circumstance that is the result of technological trends which have now made the financial model of this business of the news media a much more challenging one. So, we need to address that squarely, first.
But can we allow more entries into the market? I think we have a fairly vibrant news media. I am not sure that they are all going to be in the traditional mode. Members would know, for example, that we have some newer players, like Mothership, Rice Media and so on. And I think what we are essentially saying is that, you have to look at it as an overall eco-system and it is an eco-system where we will have new entrants coming in. You will also have some of our traditional mainstream media – in this case, Mediacorp as well as SPH Media. And we also have the international media who have a very strong presence here in Singapore. So, we have to look at it from an eco-system perspective. It is not about singularly pursuing one aspect, but it is trying to ensure the overall local media grows and is able to hold its own vis-a-vis some of the broader competition it faces and the challenges we have talked about. So, that is the context in which I think we will look at it.
Secondly, KPIs. Will there be KPIs? I understand what the Member is saying. If I could refer the Member back to what I have said in my earlier comments not just in my Ministerial Statement but subsequently. In fact, that has been one of the key things we look at. So, as I have said, it is not just what Singaporeans say – which is important – in surveys and so on. It is also what they do in terms of which sites do they go to, how many page views are they getting, what is the dwell time and so on? These are all metrics and I think the Member would be very aware that there are various metrics that can be used in order to measure this, the engagement of the audience. And this is certainly something that we would want to ensure is achieved. And if people do not trust our local media as a credible source of information, then I think these metrics will suffer.
I wanted to just make one clarification on senior editorial appointments. The Government does not exercise a veto on those appointments. The decisions on those are made by management; shareholders have a say in that matter. So, just to be very clear. The Government has a say on some other matters. But when it comes to the senior editorial appointments, it is all subject to the management, shareholders' approval.
Ms Nadia Samdin.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I have got two clarifications, please.
First, we know that journalists play a critical role in society and nation-building. I would like to ask what impact will the restructured model have on the lives and livelihoods of existing SPH media employees. In addition, is there likely to be any further downsizing as part of the transfer of SPH's media business to the CLG and, if so, will the Government ensure that any employees in transition are supported?
My second clarification in Malay, please, Sir, adding on to my hon colleague Ms Mariam Jaafar's question earlier.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Local papers like Berita Harian play an important role as a source of news and information for our community, especially for our senior citizens and they highlight stories of pride, interest and concern to the community.
I would like to ask whether the Government funding will include support for the mother tongue newsrooms to embrace digital transformation and ensure that readers continue to have diversity and the highest quality in our mother tongue newspapers.
(In English): Thank you.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member.
Specifically, are there any retrenchment rationalisation? The terms of the proposal, as I understand it as of now, are to have the entire team move over and, therefore, no attritions are intended. I also believe that the desire is more to build on the capabilities that we have and to see how we can attract new talent to augment what is already in there. So, I think the first order of business for the Chairman and the CLG Board and management would really be, amongst other things, as I have said in response earlier to Ms Jessica Tan, that it is not just about the business aspects and the financial aspects, but it is also about the people aspects and this must be given importance. And this is something that, from the Government's perspective, we think is critical because, to reiterate a point I made earlier, it does not make sense to talk about quality journalism if you do not have the quality journalists and editors in the newsrooms. And that is key.
On the vernacular media – and I think the Member's point was specifically about the Malay media – I, again, want to reiterate the response that I gave earlier to Ms Mariam Jaafar. Essentially, the vernacular media are a key part of our news media in Singapore because of the voice it gives to the different communities, no matter their size, and, through that, giving them a say and a visible participation in the common space. So, I think it is something that is treasured, something that we have nurtured through the years and it is not something that we want to lose. So, certainly, in the course of this transition, we would want to ensure that that commitment to our vernacular media remains.
Now, how the vernacular media evolves, what path they take, that, I think, is something we should have a more open mind about because, in the end, they have to adapt to the needs of the community, the needs of their readers, and work out a model that sustains the interest and earns the trust of the communities they serve.
I will allow two more clarifications: Mr Pritam Singh and then closing with Ms Tin Pei Ling.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just following up from my first list of clarifications.
Yes.
I asked about the time when the Government first informed SPH that it was prepared to extend grants to support its media business and I also asked about the size of that grant. I would be surprised if the Government had not considered what would be the extent of the grant that it would extend to the CLG. So, can the Minister share with us if there is any ballpark figure as to what is the amount of taxpayer dollars that will be going to the CLG?
The Minister made a point about the standards of journalism. It is not a simple issue to address in the course of a Ministerial Statement. But my generation, at least, remember this headline, this cover page in the New Paper, which was in 1997, at a very sensitive time just during the elections. It contained a checklist to help you decide how to vote. The Minister spoke earlier about objectivity and balance. The only thing objective about this cover page is the EPL scores – no-win for Liverpool and also for Manchester United.
The checklist, essentially, told the voters what you are voting for. If you vote for the PAP, you are voting for upgrading, Edusave and Members of Parliament of acceptable character.
Mr Pritam Singh, if I could ask you to ask your clarification rather than expound in a speech. Thank you.
I will come to that, Deputy Speaker. Thank you. I will be brief.
But I would agree with the Minister to the extent that one has to be fair to the journalists because there are good journalists. And a good example can be found in a piece published on 1 May this year. The Chinese Media Group head of Zaobao, Lee Huay Leng asked some very serious questions about the leadership transition to the 4G leadership and, she said, "internal competition is intense; there is no consensus to pick any one". On the other hand, the English papers, "a major Cabinet reshuffle but now is not the time to read the tea leaves". So, there can be different views on the quality and the standards of journalism and it is for that reason that I put my earlier question to the Minister about a Select Committee and to try and get some understanding from the public what they expect of a taxpayer-funded CLG.
I note the comment the Minister made about the surveys. But I think this is an opportunity to hear from the public and I hope the Government can consider this favourably.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition has decided to make political capital out of something that I think is quite fundamentally important to us. Even in the examples that he cites, in a way, he has already illustrated the point that I am making. He went back to 1997 to bring out an example and then he says, just this year, the Chinese media put one point of view and the English media put another point of view. Is this not the diversity that we want? Is it not the diversity that the Leader of the Opposition has been talking about?
So, I am not very clear why he thinks the current model is not succeeding. Is it perfect? No. I would challenge him to show me a model that works and that is perfect. But is it one that works in our context? I think it does. With some areas for improvement? Certainly. But it is an evolutionary process. And even in the examples that the Leader of the Opposition cites, I think it is quite clear. And I would add that what we want at the end of the day is not posturing, but substance. So, if we can achieve that, not just in the news media, but also in this Chamber, I think we would have gone a long way to building a stronger country and nation.
As for the funding, the Leader of the Opposition asked for ballpark numbers. But that is precisely the problem, is it not? I think we should be talking about these sorts of matters when we have greater clarity because, to throw a ballpark number, and if I give Members a range, then the question would be, "Oh, it is a very big range. Can you narrow it down?" And if I say, "No, I cannot", then we go back to square one.
So, the point is we are doing the responsible thing here, from the Government's point of view. Not just to say that we support the restructuring – because we could have stopped there – but we went a step further to say that we would be prepared to fund the CLG. That is a significant point which should not be overlooked. And, clearly, when the funding is finally decided upon, it will have to come back to this Chamber because it will be part of the budget of MCI and the Member and his party would have ample opportunity to ask all the specific questions.
But let us not miss the wood for the trees. It is not about the details right now. It is about the overall thrust of what we are trying to do. Is it the right thing to do? Is our news media an important public good that we should be supporting? And, if so, has it done a good job up to now in the models that we have used? And, if yes, then let us work with that and build on it rather than talk about a complete wholesale overhaul.
Ms Tin Pei Ling.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Two clarifications, the first one in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Bilingualism is an important characteristic of our education system. Being bilingual helps us to stay connected with our mother tongue cultures and it strengthens Singapore's global role as a cultural and economic bridge. I think this is important. Hence, it is crucial to ensure that the high standards of our vernacular newspapers are maintained.
Just now, Minister said that they would ask vernacular newspapers to be preserved after restructuring. I would like to ask further, since the Government will provide funding for the CLG, can we expect them to maintain the high standards of their content, including the reporting of international events and providing insightful analyses on current affairs? Lianhe Zaobao has won a hard-earned international award, let us continue to support them. I hope that the Minister can give us more information on this.
(In English): The second point is about establishing Singapore's thought leadership and mindshare internationally. I think this is very important. Helping our papers to be able to be circulated internationally is a very critical part, in addition to the national cohesion, national public good in Singapore. So, again, I would like to ask Minister, whether this is something that is on the agenda or one of the parameters that we may require the new CLG to look into in the move ahead. And whether there will be resources or funding set aside to build such capabilities?
Can you clarify about the international query?
Establishing Singapore's thought leadership and mindshare internationally is important. So, how can we build up that ability to ensure that we can be circulated internationally?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for her points. I think it is very important that we take this opportunity to once again, reiterate the commitment to the vernacular media, as part of this and any future restructuring or other changes that may occur. They are important pillars in our multi-ethnic fabric.
I think I have made the point about the important role that they play, and in particular, by giving voice to the particular community. For that reason alone, we should be focused on how we can give them not just resources, but really the motivation and ambition to be more.
I think that is the other point that the Member has raised, which is from an international point of view. For example, and I think specifically in the context of say, the Chinese media, I am sure it will not be lost on many within the SPH organisation but also those who are going to be involved later, that our Chinese media has significant potential to not just cater to the needs of Singaporeans, but also to be able to present a perspective on international affairs. I think it will be a very valued one because it will represent the Singapore point of view, which would be seen as being objective. And it will also be one that would be valuable to Singaporeans because there will be a chance to understand some of these international developments through the lens of Singaporeans and how they assess this in terms of its impact on us and our long-term interests.
So, for all those reasons, I think we will want to make sure that the vernacular media do not just pivot to digital, but actually develop additional important capabilities to meet this broader need that we have. I think this is something that I would have to defer to the CLG Chairman and the members of the Board and the management, who will then have to take this forward. But I think from a Government point of view, certainly there should be no doubt as to where we stand on the issue. I thank the Member for bringing it up.
Order. End of Ministerial Statement. Introduction of Government Bills. Second Minister for Home Affairs.
PAPERCUTS