Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information

The Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, may I have your permission to seek two points of clarifications with Mr Leon Perera?

Mr Deputy Speaker: You have my permission.

6.50 pm

Mr Chee Hong Tat: Thank you, Sir. Sir, earlier during the supplementary question and answer time for Parliamentary Question (PQ) No 22, Mr Perera mentioned that there was an example of how he had emailed to Mediacorp regarding a footage of a parliamentary debate and he felt that some parts were left out. [Please refer to "Video Recordings of Parliamentary Proceedings", Official Report, 7 November 2017, Vol 94, Issue No 54, Oral Answers to Questions section.]

I have checked the facts of the correspondence between Mr Perera and Mediacorp. Based on what I understand, Mr Perera wrote to Mediacorp on 20 February this year and he made reference to a footage of the debate during the Second Reading of the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill on 6 February. Mediacorp replied to Mr Perera on the same day, 20 February, to explain that a technical error had led to a truncation of the clip and Mediacorp had fixed it on 18 February, two days before Mr Perera wrote to them. So, this was what they wrote in their email reply to Mr Perera.

I just wanted to confirm with Mr Perera whether what I described is factually accurate because, based on what I understand and as I explained to him and the House earlier today, the policy is not to leave out any parts of the debate; the footage will show the full debate.

What Mediacorp will do is that they would rearrange the footages by speaker to make it more convenient for viewers to choose which footage they want to view. So, that is the first point of clarification that I would like to seek from Mr Perera. Maybe I will let Mr Perera reply to the first point.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State. That is, indeed, in accordance with my recollection of the exchange that I had with Mediacorp. What was communicated to me was that was a technical glitch on that occasion where certain parts of the video footage were truncated. So, I think as a result of that exchange I had with Mediacorp, they removed the video with the truncations and then they uploaded a new video without the truncations. As I referred to in my earlier comments during my exchange with the Senior Minister of State, the issue was amicably resolved.

The purpose of that exchange was to establish whether or not there is any editing that is occasionally done. If it is the Senior Minister of State's assurance that, generally, as a matter of policy, such footage is never edited, I am quite prepared to accept that assurance.

Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Member for his clarification. But I do need to further confirm one point with him, which is that his email to Mediacorp was dated 20 February. Mediacorp, in their reply to Mr Perera, said that they had already fixed the problem of the truncated clip on 18 February. So, in other words, it was not a result of Mr Perera's email to them. They had confirmed with Mr Perera in their reply they had already fixed the truncated clip on 18 February when he emailed to them on 20 February. May I please seek confirmation from Mr Perera that what I described is factually accurate?

Mr Leon Perera: I thank the Senior Minister of State for his comments. I do not have a specific recollection of the dates but I will say at this point that it could well be the case that there was the correspondence. I would need to go back and refer to my archive of emails to verify if that is the case. But I am sure and I am quite willing to accept what the Senior Minister of State has said that that is the case. I am sure that that will be the case when I have verified. So, I am quite prepared to accept that fact.

And, as I said earlier, I am quite prepared to accept the Senior Minister of State's assurance that video footage is not, as a matter of policy, edited, for whatever reason, and that it is uploaded verbatim with the exception of errors or technical glitches that I do accept will happen from time to time.

Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Member for his confirmation. I would like to seek a second point of clarification with Mr Perera and this pertains to the debate earlier on the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) (Amendment) Bill.

During the debate, Mr Perera, in his speech, supported the use of e-cigarettes, which is also what tobacco companies have advocated. I would like to seek clarification from Mr Perera that I understand that he is the CEO of Spire Group, which is a research and consulting company. I wanted to ask and confirm if the Member has any interest that he wishes to declare.

Mr Leon Perera: I thank the Senior Minister of State for his remarks. And my comments are not in any way motivated by any prospect of financial gain. As a general matter of policy, the work that my company does, does not pertain to the tobacco business at all, in fact. And that is the position that we have taken historically. So, I do not serve tobacco clients in a private capacity in the work that I do for this company.

I would add that I take strong objection to any implication that the opinions I have expressed in my speech for the Tobacco Bill was motivated by commercial considerations in any way. They were motivated purely on matters of principle and matters of opinion.

Mr Chee Hong Tat: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I had only asked the Member if he had any interest to declare. Can I also ask Mr Perera if Henkel, a key manufacturer of adhesives for cigarettes is a client of Spire Group of which Mr Perera is the Chief Executive Officer?

Mr Leon Perera: The Senior Minister of State has asked if Henkel is a client. Henkel, I believe, has been a very small past client. But as I mentioned earlier, we do not support tobacco companies. We do not work with tobacco companies as clients − Philip Morris and so on and so forth. These are not clients of the company I work for and, therefore, there is no commercial motivation in the comments that I made.

And I would like to register my very strong objection to any insinuation that there is any commercial motivation to the comments that I made. They are matters of principle which are matters of my opinion and they are not motivated by any prospect of financial gain or commercial gain. So, I want to register a very strong objection to that.