Plagiarisation of "Count On Me Singapore" Song and Actions against Infringements of National Symbols

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Ministry regularly checks the media and the Internet for possible infringements of our national symbols; (b) how many cases of copyright infringement have been uncovered to date and how were they dealt with; and (c) whether there are any plans to enhance the protection of intellectual property rights for our national symbols.

Sir, our principal consideration, when addressing questions as to the use of copyright in our national songs and symbols, is to ensure that we protect our ownership and interest in our national songs and symbols, as well as to promote the dignified use and respectful use of them.

To address Mr Leong Mun Wai's question about the actions the Ministry has taken to protect Singapore's copyright in the case of a composer plagiarising the song "Count on Me Singapore", let me set out the details of this incident.

We first received feedback that the song, "We Can Achieve", was featured in several videos, some of which were of school children, apparently from India, singing the song. This song was almost identical to "Count on Me, Singapore", save for minor differences, such as replacing the word "Singapore" with "India", and a line in the song which goes, "we are told no dreams to hold that we can strive for".

In the videos, the students appeared to be expressing their love for their country and the song was not disrespectfully treated. The publisher of the song "We Can Achieve" subsequently came forward to acknowledge that the song seemed to be substantially copied from "Count on Me, Singapore" and apologised for it, as well as removed it from their platforms.

We did not believe that there was any ill will or malice intended and hence accepted this apology.

Shortly after, one Mr Joey Mendoza, then alleged that he, in fact, was the one who wrote the song, "We Can Achieve" in 1983. This was an untenable assertion, given that this song, as I mentioned earlier, was practically identical to "Count on Me, Singapore". If his claim was right, it would be a direct affront to our own ownership and interest in the national song "Count on Me, Singapore".

We thus pressed Mr Mendoza to substantiate his claims. If he could not, then he should withdraw them. We were prepared to initiate legal proceedings, if necessary, to protect our position.

At the same time, we also undertook extensive fact-checking in Singapore and in India, to refute Mr Mendoza's claims. We obtained confirmation of contemporaneous and documentary evidence of the writing of the song, "Count on Me, Singapore". Mr Jeremy Monteiro, a respected musician and Cultural Medallion recipient, was witness to the events at the material time, contemporaneously. Members might have read his account in the news of how he worked alongside Mr Hugh Harrison when Mr Harrison composed the song in 1986.

In response to our requests for proof of his claims and to substantiate his position, Mr Mendoza then changed his position. He subsequently withdrew his claims. He admitted that he had no evidence to support his claims and confirmed the following in writing:

(a) that he unconditionally and irrevocably withdraws all claims to the lyrics and music of the song, "We Can Achieve" which he recognises is similar to "Count on Me, Singapore";

(b) that he had informed all his associates and networks of the above and also instructed all social media platforms to pull down the song "We can Achieve" with immediate effect; and

(c) that he had no intention of attacking the integrity or professionalism of Mr Harrison, the original composer of "Count on Me, Singapore".

Mr Mendoza's admission leaves no doubt that "Count on Me, Singapore" was written by Mr Harrison and that the rights and ownership in the national song remain with us. Mr Mendoza also wrote to us to confirm that the song "We Can Achieve" has been taken down from known networks and platforms. We have thus let the matter rest on this basis.

Sir, our national songs hold a special place in the hearts of Singaporeans. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) takes any challenge to our proprietary rights and interests in our national songs and symbols very seriously, and we will take the necessary steps to protect them. The current legal position for our national songs and symbols includes the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem legislation (SAFNA), as well as the Copyright Act. The legislation around the use of the national symbols and the Government's stance on copyright of the national songs are intended to prevent misuse that might diminish or denigrate the standing of such symbols and songs.

At the same time, we should not take umbrage at every such use, and resort to legal remedies each time. A careful judgement is made in each case, as to whether and if so what, action is to be taken, along the considerations which I have outlined above.

To Mr Gerald Giam's question on whether the Government regularly checks for possible infringements of our symbols, the Ministry monitors reports on the use of the national songs and symbols by the media, does online sensing and also takes public feedback. Our symbols have generally been treated with respect and dignity. There have been rare cases of flag-burning, which usually involved other forms of misconduct, and were dealt with swiftly under the appropriate regulations in the Penal Code.

Mr Giam may be aware that MCCY first announced in September 2020 that it had initiated a review of the rules governing the national symbols. We are also looking into whether there is a need to enhance IP protection for our symbols. Honouring and respecting our symbols, however, is not something that is achieved only by legal regimes or protecting copyright. We must also cultivate and sustain a strong connection and respect that Singaporeans feel for symbols and songs. All of us have a part to play in upholding our symbols and passing them down to future generations. And to that end, MCCY has convened a citizens' workgroup on our national symbols to seek the public's feedback and views on this review, because these symbols indeed, belong to all of us.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank Singaporeans who have invested their time and energy to participate in the workgroup as well as those who have responded to our survey on our national symbols.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for the reply. Our national songs were written by various composers, both local and foreign, some of whom were working for advertising agencies contracted by the Government. Can I confirm that the Government holds the exclusive copyright to the music and lyrics for all our national songs, such that none of these composers or advertising agencies can claim ownership whether now or in the future?

Secondly, if the Government holds this exclusive copyright, do groups and individuals need to seek permission from the Government to perform the copyrighted work publicly, whether in Singapore or overseas?

The answer to Mr Giam's second question is yes, permission needs to be sought and the legal ambit and regulations that govern this will be set out in the Copyright Act, as with any other ownership of copyright.

As for Mr Giam's first question, most of the songs which were written by third parties, the copyright is with the Government. There are some other arrangements where the copyright in the composer and lyricist might be different. But in all situations, where it is either owned by the Government or managed by the Government, to that extent, permission would be sought before any third party uses or performs these songs on any other platform.

Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for the clarification. I have two questions. One is when MCCY put up the first statement on "Imitation is the best form of flattery", was it before Mr Mendoza came out to claim his rights?

Second question is, since Mr Mendoza had come up originally to claim his rights, after we had done our check on our rights, why did we not actually press the issue further and asked him to admit plagiarism, rather than just letting him go like that? Because in Singapore, we are aspiring to be the global original arbitration centre. Dealing with such infringement of IP rights lightly, will affect our aspirations to be that. Can the Minister clarify, please?

On Mr Leong's first question, the original post by MCCY was before Mr Mendoza surfaced his claims. As I explained earlier, the first video or the first series of videos were of school children in a respectful setting, using the song albeit without permission. And it was in that context that the first message that Mr Leong refers to was put up.

Subsequently, when Mr Mendoza asserted his claim, as I explained in my answer earlier, Mr Mendoza's assertion was a direct challenge to our own ownership and proprietary interest in the song, then things took a different turn and we pressed Mr Mendoza to withdraw his claims, which brings me to my second point.

As I explained earlier, Mr Mendoza did in fact admit that he has no ownership interest; he has got no evidence to substantiate his position that he lays any claim to the song. He withdraws his position he previously took on "We Can Achieve".

So, to Mr Leong's point about assertion of interest in our copyright, assertion of our position and our ownership of such copyright, that was what we did precisely with Mr Mendoza.

Mr Leong should not also confuse asserting our rights with necessarily taking legal action, legal proceedings. They are not necessarily the same thing. And in this case, it was far more efficient, quicker and a lot more effective for Mr Mendoza to be persuaded that his own position was untenable, for his claims to be withdrawn by himself and not in any way removing the Singapore Government's claim and, in fact, for all Singaporeans' interest in the songs to be preserved.

That, I believe in this context, was a far more efficient outcome that was achieved in a matter of several days, as opposed to being caught up in protracted legal action, which could potentially take a fairly long period of time.