12/ 24 /13 <font sty le=' color:blue; ba ckground -col or:y ellow; '> <font sty le=' color:blue; ba ckground -color :y ellow;'>< fon t style='color :blue; b ack gr ou nd-color:y ellow;'… 1/40 This report was printed from Singapore Parliament website. Parli ament N o: 9 Ses s i on No: 2 V ol um e No: 72 Si tt i ng No: 3 Si tti ng Date: 22-05-2000 Sect i on Name: BIL L S Title: POLITICAL DONATIONS BILL MPs Speaking: Mr Wong Kan Seng (Mi nister f or Hom e Affai rs); Mr C hia m See Tong; Mr Goh Choon Kang; Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam; Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap; Mr Low Thia Khiang; Mr Sin Boon Ann; Mr Thomas Thomas; Mr Zulki fli Bi n Baharud in; Mr Tan Soo Kho on (Mr Speaker); Column: 242 POLITICAL DONATIONSBILL Ord er f or Sec ond Readin g read. 1.53 pm The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng):Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be n ow read a Secon d ti m e." IntroductionThe Political DonationsBill seeks to prohibit donations topol i ti cal parties, pol i ti cal associations, and candidates in parliamentary election or presidential elections by persons and bodies who are not permissible donors. It also requires pol i ti cal pa rties, associati ons and candidates to report l arge donations that they have received. Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is an independent and sovereign country. Foreigners should not be allowed to interfere in our domestic pol i ti cs. It is no more legitimate for foreigners to pay money to support apol itical association or candidate than it is for them to have the right to support the associations' cause, or to vote for the candidate. Any Singaporean or organisation that allows himself or itself to be used by foreign elements, or collaborates or colludes with them to interfere in our internal affairs, is subverting the independence, integrity and sovereignty of the country. We must not allow this to happen. Politics in Singapore should be for Sing aporea ns only . But Singapore is not immune to foreign interference. We have had to deal with interference in our domestic pol i tics. In 1959, a Government Commission of Inquiry revealed that two sums of money totalling $700,000 were transferred from New York to Mr Chew Swee Kee, then Column: 243 Education Minister from the Singapore People's Alliance, the ruling party led by Mr Lim Yew Hock, then Chief Minister. I think many young Singaporeans do not even know about this. The Inquiry revealed that the money was meant as apol i ti cal gift to the Labour Front (and I quote the report) "for the purposes of fighting
40
Embed
2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
subversion in the colony" and "strengthening" the Labour Front "as an effective party and bulwark against
communism." Then in 1976, the Secretary-General of the People's Front, Mr Leong Mun Kwai, who is still
around today, revealed during Police's investigations on the misappropriation of the People's Front's funds,
that he was given financial assistance and made use of by a neighbouring intelligence service in a "black
operation" against the interests of Singapore. A more recent case was in 1988, when a US diplomat
interfered in Singapore's domestic politics. The diplomat actively cultivated Mr Francis Seow. Mr Francis
Seow was advised by the diplomat how to establish a more effective opposition in Parliament and to set
about seriously to recruit more young professionals into the opposition. This is gross interference inSingapore's domestic politics.
We should not condone such activities. Currently, we have no law prohibiting foreign funding of political
parties, political associations and candidates of parliamentary or presidential elections. This Bill seeks to put in
place a legislative framework to prohibit such foreign funding.
Sir, Singapore is not the first country to introduce such legislation. Many countries, such as the United
States, Canada, India, France, Japan, Germany, already have laws either prohibiting or regulating foreign
political donations. Hong Kong and Taiwan also have similar laws. In South Korea, under their Political FundAct, foreigners and foreign corporations, except foreign corporations and organisations under the control of
nationals of the Republic of Korea, are not allowed to contribute political funds to any party.
Column: 244
The UK also has recently introduced a "Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill", which amongst
others, aims to regulate political donations. It is therefore timely for Singapore to introduce controls against
foreign funding. We have studied the various examples in other countries and generally adapted the UK Bill to
suit our local context.
Overview
Let me now give an overview of what our Political Donations Bill would cover, before highlighting the main
clauses of the Bill.
The Bill aims to prohibit political parties, political associations and candidates from accepting donations
from foreign sources by treating these as impermissible. Political parties, political associations and candidates
are allowed to accept donations, so long as these come from permissible sources. Similar to the approach
taken in the UK Bill, we have chosen to define who is a permissible source or who the permissible donors are because it is easier to define who is permissible rather than who is impermissible. Any donations other than
those from the defined permissible sources would constitute impermissible donations. If political parties,
associations or candidates receive any donations from impermissible sources, they would have to return the
donation to the donor. If they are unable to do so, they would have to surrender the donation to the
Government's Consolidated Fund. Political parties and associations and candidates would also be required to
report large donations, to ensure that they keep proper records of these donations.
Who does the prohibition cover?
There are three groups of people who will be covered by the prohibition against foreign funding. Firstly, all
political parties, such as the People's Action Party, the Singapore People's Party, the Workers' Party, and
other political parties registered with the Registry of Societies will be covered by the definition of " political
association" in clause 2 of the Bill. They
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
for economic growth, and provides the environment for businesses to flourish.
Unincorporated organisations are not permissible donors. Political associations and candidates therefore
cannot accept donations from these organisations. Unincorporated associations include trade unions,
societies, charities, mutual benefit organisations, businesses, professional firms and so on. Trade unions,
societies, charities, mutual benefit organisations are set up for specific purposes. As it is now, most if not all of
these associations are already prohibited from making political donations under their respective Acts or
constitutions. Sole proprietors, partnerships and professional firms have no separate legal identities from their owners. That is to say, the profits and losses of the business are the profits and losses of the individual
owners. Hence, if they wish to make donations, they should do so as individuals, as long as they are
Singaporeans and are 21 years old and above.
Anonymous donations
The Bill allows a political association to accept anonymous donations of less than $5,000 in any one
financial year of the association. Candidates can also accept up to a similar amount of anonymous donations
during the period of 12 months prior to his declaration made before nomination day. This is to take intoaccount that some well-wishers may wish to remain anonymous in making donations to political associations
or candidates. We have chosen a reasonable limit of $5,000 to strike a balance between allowing well-
wishers to make small anonymous donations and not opening up a loophole for significant foreign
Column: 249
donations to slip through as anonymous donations.
What is a donation?
Clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill deal with the definition of donations and how the donations are valued. These
provisions are adapted from the UK Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. Donations are defined
broadly to include all goods or services, such as any gifts of money or property, subscription and affiliation
fees, loans, property, services and other facilities provided to the candidate or political association that are
not on commercial terms. For example, if the goods or services are rendered to a political association at less
than commercial rates, the value of the donation would be the difference between the actual cost to the
association and the cost which the association would have incurred if it had been provided on commercial
terms.
Donations would not include any notional benefits of airtime during lawful party political broadcasts, or any
postage-free elections communications authorized by written law. These benefits are granted by or pursuant
to our written laws, and would not be considered as donations.
Like the UK Bill, donations would also not include any voluntary services by an individual. It is neither
practical nor feasible to put a value to voluntary services. For example, if an individual contributes, in his own
time, professional services within his own sphere of expertise, such as accounting expertise, to a political
party, this service would not be regarded as a donation. He could be self-employed, or he could take leave
from his employer to provide his service to the political party. As long as he volunteers his services in his own
time, it would not be regarded as a donation. However, if the individual is paid by his employer while
providing services to a political party, the services would count as a donation by the employer to the political
party. The value of the donation is the commercial rate of providing the services.
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
What should a political party or a candidate do upon receiving a donation?
Clauses 9 and 15 of the Bill require every political association or candidate or his election agent to take all
reasonable steps to identify the donor and to determine whether the donor is a permissible donor beforeaccepting any donation received.
If the donation is from an impermissible source, the political association, candidate or his election agent
must return the donation to the foreign source. If that cannot be done, the donation must be returned to the
person who transmitted the donation or to the bank, if the money was drawn from a bank. If that is also not
possible, the donation must be surrendered to the Registrar of Political Donations.
If a political association receives an anonymous donation, it must ensure that it has not accepted $5,000 or
more of such donations in the year in question. Any anonymous donations above the allowed limit must be
returned either to the person who transmitted it or the bank, or in the last resort, surrender it to the Registrar.
Similar provisions operate with regard to candidates and election agents receiving anonymous donations.
Reporting of Donations
Sir, the Bill provides for political associations and candidates of parliamentary or presidential elections to
submit a donation report and a declaration on political donations to the Registrar of Political Donations. By
requiring a declaration to be submitted with a donation report, it would obviate the need for the political
associations to list all donations, which would be administratively tedious. The declaration would state that the
political association or candidate did not accept any foreign donations as well as anonymous donations beyond the permissible limit, ie, less than $5,000. Political associations and candidates need to list only large
donations of $10,000 or above in the donation report. This reporting
Column: 251
requirement ensures that political associations and candidates keep proper records of the donations which
they receive.
Let me elaborate on the reporting requirements.
Political Associations
Sir, clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill require political associations to submit a donation report and a declaration
to the Registrar within 31 days from the close of its financial year. This is similar to current practice whereby
political parties are already required under the Societies Act to submit their annual returns and statement of
accounts to the Registrar of Societies within 31 days from the close of their financial year or the Annual
General Meeting, if there is one.
The political association should list in the donation report all donations of $10,000 or more, whether it is asingle donation, or a series of donations from the same source, which adds up to $10,000 or more during that
financial year. For example, if the political association accepts three donations from the same individual
donor, and the three donations add up to more than $10,000 in the financial year, the political association
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
Registrar to keep track of small multiple donations that add up to a significant amount of $10,000 within a
short period of one year. The reporting requirement will also lessen the tedious task of verifying such
donations. A donor would not need to declare if the total donation is less than $10,000 in a calendar year. He
also would not need to declare if he made a single donation, or a few donations, each of which is $10,000 or
more. In this case, the political association should have captured these donations in the donation report. A
similar requirement can also be found in the UK Bill.
Reports Not Open to Public Inspection
The donation reports submitted to the Registrar of Political Donations would not be open to the public.
Allowing public inspection of the donation reports could inhibit permissible donors from donating to political
associations or candidates.
As it is now, political parties, like all other registered societies, are required to submit annual returns and
statement of accounts to the Registrar of Societies and these annual returns and statement of accounts are
also not available for public inspection.
Offences
Let me now turn to the offences under the Bill.
Sir, under this Bill, accepting foreign donations per se would not be an offence. Instead, the foreign
donations would just be forfeited if they are not or cannot be returned to the donor. Clauses 11 and 17 of the
Bill enable the Public Prosecutor to apply to a District Court to order the forfeiture of a donation from an
impermissible source which a political association or a candidate or his election agent has accepted. Clauses
11 and 17 also provide
Column: 254
for appeals to the High Court against the decision of the District Court.
Each of the responsible officers of a political association or a candidate or his election agent would commit
an offence if any of them makes a false declaration in relation to political donations. For example, if a political
association accepts a foreign donation but the declaration accompanying the donation report declares
otherwise, each of the responsible officers would have committed an offence of false declaration, unless he
can show that he did not know and could not reasonably have known that the declaration was false. This isreasonable since the political association is in the best position to know the circumstances under which the
donations were received.
If convicted of false declaration, then each of the responsible officers of the political association would be
liable to a fine of not exceeding $5,000 or an imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or to both. Repeat
offenders would face higher penalties - a fine not exceeding $20,000 or an imprisonment not exceeding 3
years, or to both.
Under the Bill, it would be an offence if political associations and candidates and their election agents do
not submit the donation reports and declaration within the stipulated time, for example, for the political
association, it would be within 31 days from the close of the association's financial year. If convicted, each of
the responsible officers of the political association would be liable to a fine of up to $2,000.
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
political party was baffled by money politics. In the recent presidential election in Taiwan, we also saw the
"black gold" politics prevailing over Taiwan. According to newspaper reports, some people in the United
States alleged that China had attempted to make political donations to the Democratic Party, and created a
huge hue and cry out of that.
Now, let us come back to politics in Singapore. I think we are fortunate because we do not have such
problems. The reason is that the PAP Government has consistently maintained its stand on keeping politics
clean and transparent here. All these years, the Government is against and resists foreign interference in our domestic affairs, including the influence through financial means. Now that we have this Bill before us, we
should be able to further enhance and institutionalise clean government, to safeguard the sovereignty and
integrity of our country, and to promote the development of transparent politics. Therefore, I think this Bill is
in keeping with our national interests.
Mr Speaker, Sir, does this Bill disadvantage the opposition parties? I do not think so. Everyone is equal
before the law, the opposition parties and the ruling party alike. Every party must come under the law, and so
this Bill will not hamper the development of any opposition party in Singapore.
Under a clean political system, whether a candidate wins or loses an election is dependent on whether or
not he gets the support of his electorate. I think the key does not lie in whether this candidate or his political
party has the money, or
Column: 257
whether the party has political donations. The key lies in whether this candidate or the party has the platform
that is in the interest of the country and the people, and can be identified by the people. The financial power
of the candidate and his party is irrelevant.
The next question is whether this Bill will affect the civic organisations or civil society. I do not think so. On
the contrary, I feel that this Bill will encourage civic organisations to develop and prosper. This is because we
are now encouraging active citizenship, encouraging our people to take part in our public affairs, to show their
concern in the society and the community.
So if you have a civic organisation whose objective and motivation is very clear, transparent and proper,
then why should they fear? Why should they worry at all, unless they have ulterior motive, and they have to
act very surreptitiously.
As to whether this Bill will deter people from donating money to political parties, I do not think so. Ours is
an open and transparent political system. Unless a person has some ulterior motive, unless this person has
incorrect objective, he has nothing to fear or worry at all. Why should he worry about donating money to
support a certain candidate or a certain political party? He can donate money to a party or a candidate that
he believes can represent his interest.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill cannot give us 100% protection or safeguard. In other words, it cannot fully and
completely deter certain people, particularly those people with ulterior motives, to work through loopholes to
try and influence the political process in Singapore. But I think that overall, with our strong political structure,
we can maintain clean, open and transparent politics. Ultimately, it will depend on those who take part in
politics themselves - whether such people have the moral conduct. Therefore, I feel that even with this Bill
around, it can only give us certain protection and safeguard. But we must still continue to insist that all
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
those who take part in politics must have the integrity and good moral conduct, so as to continue upholding
our transparent, clean and open political tradition in Singapore. That Singapore has this clean, transparent and
open political tradition is, to a large extent, attributed to our political leaders who themselves maintain very
noble moral standards in politics and they have established the good example for all to emulate. Therefore,
even though we now have this Bill, we must continue to defend and uphold this tradition.
Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap: Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
This Bill is nothing new, as most countries prohibit external political donations. Although it is not in our
political culture to allow external influence to undermine our political system, it is timely to legislate this in case
some political parties are tempted to become puppets of outside agency. Singapore is a very small country,
strategically located both geographically and politically in this region, and therefore we always play a
significant role in the global political arena, and may be courted by other countries for their own political
agenda. We must therefore ensure that our independent stand on international affairs should never be
compromised and come under any influence by other nations, big or small. Because of our openness, we
must ensure that Government must not be subjected to any outside political pressure to influence the way we
govern ourselves. We must maintain our national integrity at all costs.
Donation of any kind from foreign sources invariably means influence of our politicians involved as those
who pay out of funds must have their own ulterior motive and agenda. Therefore, it is necessary that we
introduce the Bill to ensure that our political parties and candidates taking part in any of our parliamentary or
presidential elections uphold their independence and not be subjected to any outside interference.
I am glad that the Opposition Members, Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia
Column: 259
Khiang, have come out in support of the Bill, as was reported in the press. However, when they raised
objection to some of the provisions to safeguard the administration of the Bill, they betrayed their sincerity in
their support for the Bill. What is the use of having a legislation with no safeguard for its implementation, if the
legislation is so easily circumvented, and if one can find so many ways to get around the rules and regulations
governing the Act? Surely the introduction of the Bill becomes meaningless. In fact, on Thursday, 18th May,
the Straits Times reported that in the US, a member of the Federal Election Commission lamented that, "The
Federal Election law is in serious gravity of losing all effectiveness." The aim of the law enacted 25 years ago
has eroded over time because despite the tight rules and regulations in place, the US Election is being
influenced by people who found ways to exploit the loopholes to achieve their personal objectives. Therefore,
far from being too stringent in the provision of all safeguards in the Bill, such as those laid out in clauses 8, 12,
13 and 14 which maintain that the candidates or political parties be transparent in receiving any donation from
permissible sources and state their conditions in which political parties can accept political donations, in
actuality, it would not be sufficient to cover all the loopholes which can be exploited by those intending to
exert influence on our political parties or candidates and for those in the same party or candidates who want
to act as proxy for some outside agency.
Today, in the Forum page, a group of readers is concerned that the definition of political association in theAct would affect adversely the group of civil societies in Singapore. I am puzzled because civil societies are
supposed to be non-partisan and they are supposed to be concerned citizens who speak up for Singaporeans
on matters relating to Government policy governing Singapore. They should not be supporting any political
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
party or candidates and definitely have no reason to receive donations from foreign sources for these
purposes. Therefore, to call for
Column: 260
the re-definition of political association to mean two-thirds of an organisation's annual funding and activities
being spent on supporting the election of political candidates is meaningless. Associations or societies are
either political or non- political. It cannot be two-thirds political and one-third non- political. It is absurd to seehow an association or society which is committed to a cause can be so wishy-washy and be so indecisive as
to which role they are to play. Besides, if the term is being re-defined, what is to stop political parties from
establishing civil societies or associations as a fund to channel foreign funds for their political use? It is
precisely this and I feel that there are still many ways in which one can circumvent the Bill. Offhand, I can
think of two.
Firstly, what if a political candidate writes a book, never mind the substance of the contents, and an outside
agency buys up 1,000 copies at an inflated price to generate the necessary funds intended to be given to the
party or the candidate? Secondly, a political candidate can be invited to give a lecture in another country and
be given a huge honorarium which is not commensurate with the substance of the lecture, but purely as a
means to justify the donation. This is definitely not acceptable. If the candidate is a respectable statesman or
someone who is being held in high esteem by the international community, then the honorarium can be
justified. But if some unknown political aspirant is given a huge sum of honorarium for such a lecture, then
obviously something is very wrong. These are just two examples which can be used by unscrupulous foreign
sources to generate funds for the political party and candidate they intend to assert influence, and I am sure
there are many more if we do not comprehensively tighten all the loopholes.
I would like the Minister to consider ways to tighten the Bill by introducing a clause where the onus is on
the political party or candidate to prove that any funds received by any means should be bona fide and not asa cover for such funds to be generated for political use from outside
Column: 261
sources. It is also necessary to monitor other channels where the funds can be made that have not been
covered by the Bill. The Registrar of Political Donations should be given more power to investigate funds
which he is not totally satisfied that they are being donated in accordance with the Political Donations Bill.
I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.15 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 2.49 pm until 3.15 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.15 pm
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak at this
early stage of the Second Reading. This Bill particularly concerns the opposition parties and it is very vital for
the opposition parties. I thank you for recognising that and you have given me the opportunity to speak.
Sir, let us make no mistake about this Bill. This Bill is going to have far-reaching implications on the political
development in this country. Let no one misunderstand that. This Bill, I say, is sounding the death knell for political development along the road to a greater democracy in this country. That is what it is all about.
We have heard this afternoon from the Minister but what he has said does not, even in one iota, tell us the
need for the introduction of this Bill in Singapore and particularly at this point of time. It is completely silent on
that. May I tell the Government that questions have been raised outside and I have spoken to others and they
say, "Why do you think the Government is introducing this Bill now?" They need to be answered. So I ask
the Minister, when he replies, to try and answer that question. What is the burning necessity for this Bill to be
introduced in
Column: 262
Singapore at this particular moment? And furthermore, there are a number of other things wrong about the
way this Bill is being presented in Parliament. It was read for the first time on the 9th of this month. Barely 12
days after that, we are asked to pass this Bill. What is the great haste? Because this Bill concerns
Singaporeans, it is a question that concerns Singaporeans, the growth of political development in this country.
Every Singaporean should be interested in that. Where are we heading in the way of political development?
Why is the Government rushing this Bill through? There have been no opportunities given for discussion on
this Bill outside Parliament. There has been no opportunity given by way of a White Paper explaining the
reasons for this Bill. It will be passed as though it is just an ordinary Bill, and people should not worry toomuch about it. This is no ordinary Bill.
Sir, I rise to oppose this Bill, not only myself but also my Party. The previous speaker mentioned that the
Member for Hougang from my Party supported the Bill. I have clarified this with the Member. It would
appear that he was quoted out of context. Of course, the Workers' Party is second to none in not wanting
foreigners to come and tell us how to run our country. But what does this Bill do?
This Bill, for all its high-sounding words from the Minister, is attempting to dry up for the political parties in
Singapore getting monies to further the cause of democracy for Singapore. The People's Action Party, I amquite sure, is flushed with funds. We have not been told how much they have got in the kitty. Would they like
to tell us? We will then tell you how much the Workers' Party has, but I am sure the Government knows what
the Workers' Party has. I do not speak for the other opposition parties but I am sure that they do not have
anything like what the PAP can boast of in the way of funds. May I ask: is that a healthy state of affairs for
Singapore that whilst the Government ruling party is able to tap money, the other political parties which
oppose the Government are starved of any funds?
Column: 263
I see that the PAP Treasurer, in a statement to the papers some days ago, mentioned that quite a
substantial sum comes from the members themselves and he picks up the monthly pledges or donations made
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
by the Ministers. Of course, the Ministers can afford to give out of their huge salaries that they are being paid
from public monies. May I ask: is that one of the reasons why Ministers are paid such huge sums so that the
Party may get some of the money? But he makes a valid point, and that is this. This is the Treasurer of the
People's Action Party, and he says this Bill may prevent people who have given donations anonymously in the
past to think whether they should continue to give any donations anonymously. There you have it. This is to
try and cut off from the other political parties people who would like to give money to the political parties but
who wish to remain anonymous. They will not. Of course, they will be quite happy to give donations to the
People's Action Party and even have their names recorded so that the Party knows that they are goodSingaporeans who support the Government.
I ask the Minister: is there any evidence? Let us be serious about this Bill. Is there any evidence that
opposition parties have received funds from outside Singapore? Have you got any evidence? Let us have it
instead of making glib statements that we must tell our political parties not to be funded from outside. Let us
have it here and now. Is there any evidence, other than foreign interests, that vested interests in Singapore are
using opposition political parties for their own ends? Let me tell the House that no company in Singapore will
want to make any donation to an opposition party. That is the grim state of affairs in Singapore. While they
will be ready to open their purses for the PAP, they will not make any donation to the opposition. What arethe opposition parties to do? They will be crippled. This is an attempt to further cripple them.
The Minister refers to other countries but there has been public disquiet about huge funds going to political
parties by
Column: 264
people trying to influence policies and decisions. We know all that. Do we have that in Singapore? There is a
Bill before the UK Parliament. I have tried to get hold of the Bill but I was not able to get the whole Bill, but I
have seen a little bit of it. There, it was because of disquiet among the public over huge sums of money being paid. Quite honestly, let us have it. What is the motive and purpose for this Bill at this present moment in
Singapore? I shall have a lot to say more, Sir, on the lack of any public discussion, but time is running on and
I want to try and explain why I think this Bill has been introduced.
The Minister refers to past instances and I see he has brought in the Chew Swee Kee episode. That was
the sum received by the Government in power, not by an opposition political party. I know all about that
because I took part in that inquiry before Justice Buttrose. How is that an instance of the need for this Bill at
this particular stage? Then he brings in Mr Francis Seow. Was there any suggestion that he received any
monies? Did the PAP have any evidence that the US Embassy was giving him large sums of money? I ask theMinister to explain in this House whether this is not another instance of the PAP Government crying wolf to
further strangle opposition parties? This is not mere rhetoric, Mr Speaker, Sir. This Government has a history
of crying wolf whenever it wants to introduce legislation or take decisions which they think the people may
not be ready to accept.
I want to instance four such cases. In 1972, at an election rally, a PAP candidate seeking election to
Parliament uttered a monstrous lie that the Workers' Party had received $600,000 from Malaysia. $600,000
- my foot! We took him to court for uttering this monstrous lie, but this was all part of the PAP's plan then.
Because even before the elections, there was publicity about opposition parties, particularly directed against
the Workers' Party, which I had joined in 1971, of being used by foreign agents and foreign powers. He did
not seek to justify his statement. There was no truth in that statement. But we lost our case because
Column: 265
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
the Judge, the late Mr Justice F A Chua, dismissed the action on a purely technical reason that we had not
pleaded the Hokkien text, or was it some other dialect text, in our statement of claim.
Then, showing greater concern, the Constitution was amended to ensure that the sovereignty of Singapore
was not surrendered, except only upon a referendum. This is to keep up the pretence, Mr Speaker, Sir, that
opposition parties will be ready to surrender Singapore's sovereignty to foreign powers.
Then, next in line, is the amendment to the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act which came in 1974. I
stand corrected. And I spoke on this Bill when I moved a motion for the setting up of an independent
newspaper in Singapore sometime last year. There, the reason for that Bill was that foreigners were using the
newspapers to influence politics in Singapore. I mentioned of speeches in this House by Members - there was
no Opposition Member in Parliament at that time - saying, "We can't allow foreign devils, foreigners, to take
over our newspapers. We've got to stop all this." They said, "There was also evidence that foreign embassies
were using the newspapers with their advertisements." All well and good, outwardly. But what was the real
purpose? Speaker after speaker spoke of the need for Singaporeans to control the newspapers. Yes, but
what was the result of that Bill, as I said last year? The result was to pass over total iron-fisted control over the press to the Government. The Government had to be consulted through its two classes of shareholders -
the ordinary and preferred shareholders, who had to be appointed by the Government. And every
appointment of any staff had to be made by these preferred shareholders appointed by the Minister. So, what
was previously a de facto control of the press became legal with the passing of the 1974 Bill. The
Government could then point to the section and say, "There you are, we've got the section here. You can't
appoint so-and-so as editor. You've got to have the permission of all the preferred shareholders." So, that is
another instance of crying wolf that there was a great
Column: 266
danger to Singapore that newspapers were being taken over by foreigners.
And then came the arrests in 1987. This was not a Bill. This was an Executive decision to arrest 22
persons. Some of them were accused of being proxies for foreign agents to take over the Workers' Party.
One can see that all this was directed at the Workers' Party. The Government was saying that these people
were going to take over the Workers' Party, and so, as I said then, a fanciful case was built up, that Marxists
were taking over the Workers' Party. They had to be stopped. The Workers' Party had to be saved. Well, it
was a lot of nonsense. And why? The PAP saw that the Workers' Party was becoming a real threat. After
the 1981 election, the PAP vote dropped 121/2%. This is not fiction. This is a fact. Never before had thePAP vote dropped to that extent. So, the writing was on the wall for the PAP. And so the Workers' Party
had to be branded and some of us were prosecuted and I had to leave Parliament, purely out of convictions
which the Privy Council said were wrong.
Then there was an amendment to the Constitution to bring in an Executive President. Again, the reason and
the rationale that was put out for public consumption was that the opposition parties, if they were allowed to
continue and take over the Government, would squander our reserves. So we have got to somehow put a
brake on that. There was no question about the PAP safeguarding its reserves. The PAP will safeguard the
reserves. It was the opposition parties that would squander and so we had an Executive President. But now,
as it turned out, after all that show, the President was not given the powers. Things continued in much the
same way, but the PAP was crying wolf to try and bring in that dramatic change in the way this country is run.
So, I would ask the Minister, when he replies, to try and direct his mind to my question and not tell us
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
about the 1959 donation received by a Government Minister, not tell us about Mr Francis Seow, because
they are all completely
Column: 267
irrelevant. They are things of the past. We want to know whether there is a need now. Why are you
introducing this Bill now? What is the danger to Singapore now? It is like whenever I ask any question about
the defence expenditure, they say, "Oh, we've got to be ready to meet threats." When I ask where is thethreat coming from, they say, "Oh, no, we can't answer that question." It is all in the mind.
Would the Minister please be specific about the need for this Bill at this point of time? Or is it merely an
attempt, seeing that elections may have to be held within the next year or so, to further strangle the opposition
parties from putting up a proper fight at the next elections? The history of this Government has been one long
series of attempts to cripple, obstruct, opposition parties making headway. Are we not interested in greater
democracy in this country? Will you tell us now? Is it the intention of the Government that Singapore should
continue as it has with the PAP in government, decreeing what has to be done in Singapore without the
people's participation? People need to know all this. Are you for or are you against greater democratic
development in Singapore? Are you for or are you against greater participation by the people in political
decision? The Minister concentrates on foreign donations. But what he does not realise, or he perhaps tries to
hide, is that it dries up our own people here through the fear that exists in their minds. Are you capitalising on
that fear?
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes.
Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you. The Member for Hougang says yes.
Mr Speaker: Order. Your time is up, Mr Jeyaretnam.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have permission to clarify a statement made by my
Secretary-General?
Mr Speaker: Mr Low, it is your turn to make your speech.
Column: 268
Mr Low Thia Khiang: My Secretary-General mentioned just now that the Straits Times misquoted me. I
wish to say that the Straits Times has not misquoted me. I have indeed told the Straits Times that I am of the
view that political parties and politicians aspiring for public office should not accept donations or funding from
foreign sources. I stand by what I said. But holding that view does not automatically put me in a position that I
would accept or support the view as presented in Parliament. I suppose the problem arises because a
Member might have misquoted the Straits Times.
(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, there are three objectives of this Political Donations Bill. Firstly, legislating
to require supporters donating to political parties to furnish their names, residential address and identity cardnumbers, so as to clip the financial resources of the political parties, thereby diminishing the development
capacity of the opposition parties.
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
Secondly, to provide the PAP Government with better access to information on the financial sources of the
opposition parties and background of the supporters so as to hit at the opposition parties whenever
necessary.
Thirdly, to avoid the event of the pseudo-phenomenon of the so-called opening up under "Singapore 21"
unintentionally resulting in civic organisations turning to support the opposition parties.
As we all know, when a political party involves itself in political activities, it needs to have a lot of funds, particularly in the situation of Singapore, where it is said that "no money, no talk". For example, if an
opposition party wants to hold a forum or a mass rally, it needs money to pay for the rent of the stadium and
the various venues, and the printing of publicity materials. But the PAP does not need to incur these expenses
because they can make use of the CCs, RCs and other Government machinery to spread the news. They can
even make use of the Feedback Unit to collect information and convey the PAP's philosophy and policies.
Column: 269
On operating expenses of a political party, we can see that the party headquarter's rental itself will exceed
$5,000 a year. The PAP has a team of highly paid Ministers who can donate to the Party and there are many,
many more MPs than the opposition parties. Getting huge sums in donations to the PAP is no problem at all.
But for the opposition parties, they do not have such substantial and stable donations.
The opposition parties depend on donations of the ordinary citizens and proceeds from sale of party
newspapers and petty donations from the people, ranging from 50 cents to less than a hundred dollars. When
accumulated, these donations can add up to more than $5,000 in a year. The Bill provides that in the event of
anonymous donations amounting to more than $5,000 in a year, the Government can confiscate them. Thisamounts to saying that for even a 50-cent donation, we need to record the identity card number of the donor
to show that the donation comes from a permissible donor; otherwise the donation will be confiscated. In the
past, no receipt was issued for this type of donations.
Another type of donation comes from anonymous supporters who are willing to financially support
opposition parties or the individual candidates. But in view of the present political environment in Singapore,
they do not wish to be placed on record that they have been donating to the opposition parties. So even if we
issue official receipts to them, they would normally request that we put it under "anonymous". With the
passage of this Bill, the opposition parties would not be able to accept their donations, and their financialstrength will thus be diminished.
On the other hand, with the emergence of the Internet, the opposition parties now have more effective
means to post their bank account number on the website so that donations can be deposited into their bank
accounts directly, without worry. But with the passage of this Bill, if the donors do not provide their personal
particulars, they become anonymous donors. Eventually the donations will be confiscated by
Column: 270
the Government. Even with the donors' particulars provided, the responsible officers of the opposition partiesare unable to ascertain whether the donors are permissible donors. If they choose to accept these donations,
they face possible prosecution in court. So this Bill has attained its first objective of clipping the opposition
parties' financial resources, thereby causing the opposition parties to be short of financial resources needed
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
Secondly, let me talk about the second objective of this Bill. The Bill requires that the political parties
submit annual donation reports to the Registrar, giving details of the donors' names, addresses and IC
numbers, and also the Government can require the parties to submit other information, at any time. We do not
know what sort of information they want in respect of each donor, and how this information may be used. I
think only the PAP will know.
The most absurd provision is that any person who donates more than $10,000 in a year to a political party
or a political association is required to submit a donation report to the Registrar; failing which he can be
charged in court under this law.
Sir, when the PAP Government introduces such a Bill, it is invading the rights to free donations of the
ordinary people of Singapore. In future, they will not dare to donate, because once they donate money to the
opposition parties, they are inviting trouble for themselves. This Political Donations Bill covers also other
political associations. The Minister can, at any time, gazette any organisation as a political association to be
covered by this Bill.
The PAP Government has been talking about opening up a civil society. There are a lot of intellectuals in
Singapore who are actively contemplating participation in our local politics. The introduction of this Bill is a
heavy blow to them. The message the PAP Government wants to convey is very clear, that is to say, if any
so-called civic organisation wants to criticise the Government or even to challenge the
Column: 271
Government, then it will be simply categorised as being similar to an opposition party and it will be nipped in
the bud and given no room to develop, just like the opposition parties. They cannot criticise the Government's policies, as an independent organisation, because if an independent civic organisation is to criticise the
Government, it is like enhancing the strength of the political party.
It is said that "money can do wonders". Indeed, money has great magical power. If a politician is overly
dependent on huge donations from a certain source, his political sense may well be manoeuvred by this
benefactor of his. I believe that any politician or political party should not accept any donation from foreign
sources, otherwise it would subject itself to manoeuvering by the foreign power.
However, under these major premises, the Political Donations Bill has caused anxiety to ordinary citizenswho wish to donate to opposition parties and indirectly blocking the donations to the opposition parties.
I must clearly state that I oppose this Bill unless this Bill is further discussed by a Select Committee. So
from this Bill, we can see very clearly that the PAP Government is making use of the human weakness to
maintain its one-party superiority. At elections, it uses the threat tactics on the people and then they make use
of this superpower under the ISA to detain people without trial. Now, with this Political Donations Bill, it is
casting a shadow on those who aspire to participate in politics and creating a psychological fear in them. So
anyone who wants to support the opposition party will have to openly reveal his identity, failing which he will
automatically lose his political rights.
I urge all those who want to support the opposition to stand up courageously and fight for their due
citizens' political rights. Do not cause a psychological barrier to be generated just because your identities will
have to be revealed when making donations to the opposition parties.
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
as a political organisation? What I attempt to show to the Minister is that we have three different groups with
three different types of activities, but, by sheer definition, may all be subject to the provisions of this Bill.
Therefore, what constitutes wholly or mainly politics in Singapore is problematic to interpret. The
discretionary powers given to the Minister, in my view,
Column: 274
may be too wide and will put the Minister in a no-win situation, as it would be convenient for critics to accusethe Minister of wanting to have this provision possibly because its views are inconsistent with the
Government.
I would like to offer some other suggestions which would perhaps achieve the same purpose of preventing
foreign influence and, yet, perhaps remove some of the inconvenience that may hamper the activities of non-
partisan civic groups.
(1) Organisations registered under the Societies Act and whose activities relate to the politics in Singapore
can have, in their constitution, provisions disallowing its members to become members of any political party
or engage in any partisan politics, failing which then perhaps such organisations should be deemed to be
political organisations under this Bill.
(2) We can have provisions where organisations can be deemed to be political organisations where, for
example, there is a large membership size although the objective of the society is to be very broad based. Or
where there is a large amount of operating expenditure, we can draw a difference between an organisation
with a $2,000 bank account and one with $2 million in operating expenditure to fund its activities.
(3) Where such organisations have a significant portion of their income deriving from foreign sources, quite
logically, they should be gazetted as political organisations and subject to this provision. So I hope theMinister can accept these points, and that amendments and refinements to this Bill can be made so that we
can achieve the major intent of this Bill without jeopardising the activities of civil society.
There are also other problematic implications which I wish to highlight and seek the clarification and
assurance from the Minister:
(1) For many of us in civil society, the Internet, globalisation and the maturing civic movement in Singapore
have meant greater collaboration and cooperation
Column: 275
with civil societies in other parts of the world. In fact, my own experience has shown how surprising
foreigners are about the growth of civil society in Singapore over the last few years. However, this growth will
be affected because a large part of the activities of civil society are through seminars and conferences
overseas. It is common for foreign organisations to contribute towards travel and accommodation expenses
when inviting Singapore participants. But this Bill will deem these organisations as non-permissible donors and
therefore disallow such contributions. Conferences, seminars and discussions are vital lifeline to civil societies.
Presently, many civil societies have difficulties raising funds locally to carry out such projects. I have raised
this matter at the last Budget debate and here I am repeating my earlier call for greater Government's supporttowards civil society.
Personally, the Roundtable, for example, has carried out fund raising projects, for example, a childcare
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
centre called Haripasad in Ang Mo Kio. This is a good thing for civil society to be engaged in beyond
discussion. But I fear the future of such activities as donors may have their own reservations and
interpretations about having their identities recorded. Many would err on the side of caution and would be
reluctant to support such organisation.
(2) The definition of "permissible donors". For a company, the definition of "permissible donor" is such that
a donor has to be a Singapore-controlled company which carries out its business wholly or mainly in
Singapore. Therefore, it excludes Singapore-controlled companies but whose business activities are wholly or mainly outside Singapore as they are termed "non-permissible donors". This Bill may appear to be out of
touch with the regionalisation realities of companies. My question to the Minister is: why can we not separate
corporate identity and registration from the geography in which they do their business in? The reality is
Column: 276
that there will be some Singapore-controlled companies which derive most of their income from outside
Singapore. Why should these companies be excluded or discouraged from contributing to civil societies in
Singapore when what we really need is exactly the reverse, that they continue to contribute to the various
social causes in Singapore so that they remain rooted to this country? What about donations from a private
trust and foundations which are also a main source of income to civil societies? I wish the Minister could
clarify on this point.
Next, the meaning of "donation". Clause 3(2)(f) prohibits the collection of fees and subscription paid by
foreigners to a political association. My question is: why do you have an organisation, say, a think tank
formed to discuss regional security issues and have members and experts from around the region? This Bill
will then prohibit the organisation from collecting fees and subscription from such members.
Next, the value of donation. This Bill requires the organisation to value all donations and gifts only oncommercial terms. Again, this provision may be problematic. Depending on how you value some of these
contributions, it may exceed the amount required to be reported to the Registrar of Political Donations which
is $10,000, and an error may subject a person to prosecution and a fine simply because of his
underestimation of the value of the contributions given to the organisation. This will cause some problems for
civil societies. We have also seen recently the emergence of the individuals who stand for parliamentary
elections. They get help from friends and families who do so in their personal capacities, or maybe as
proprietors of their own firms. The interpretation of this Bill will make it problematic for friends and families to
get help, except on purely commercial terms.
Sir, I have given my qualified support for this Bill but would appeal to the Minister to consider some of the
amendments and suggestions that I have made. I hope that the Third Reading of this Bill
Column: 277
can be deferred to the next sitting so that some of these inputs from civil societies can be taken into
consideration. Sir, we have come so far, I think this is a good Bill and has good intentions. But if we can
make some amendments and allow civil societies' inputs to be considered, many of the unnecessary
constraints imposed on civil societies can be avoided. I do not think that it is such an urgent matter that we
cannot wait for another month or so.
Mr Thomas Thomas (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, as all good Singaporeans, we want the
destiny of this country to be decided by our own citizens and by Singaporeans, and in wanting to exclude or
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
have rules to prevent foreigners from trying to control and unduly influence the outcome of our society wins
my support. At the same time, while we try to have controls to prevent foreigners coming in, we must still
encourage the participation of our citizens in our political life and civil society.
Democracy and democratic institutions can be strengthened if more of our citizens participate and take an
interest in politics and civil society matters. Therefore, the challenge here is to get the right balance between
controls and free involvement. We should not have too much controls in that the free involvement becomes
constrained. I think the art is getting the right balance. But before we even talk about balance, when we talk about the need for funds, the biggest need for funds is actually to participate. Therefore, if you make it cheap
and not too expensive for people to participate in politics and stand for elections, then the need to raise funds
and be dependent on too many sources of funds become unnecessary. Therefore, having the elections where
you have limits on expenditure, ie, $2.50 per voter, does not make it really necessary to raise funds. And we
should still work at great expense to keep expenses of conducting elections and being involved in public life
affordable, and barriers for entry as low as possible, so that any Singaporean who aspires to get into politics
through a party, or as an independent candidate, can freely do so.
Column: 278
But having said that, we also need a few clarifications. One of the clarifications is we need to define a little
bit more on the political associations other than political parties. And one of the best ways is for the Minister
to give examples, and even if he has the examples and he has to gazette, it is good to give ample notice to a
concerned organisation. And I would support that more than a political party should be defined as " political
association" because many could be third parties who can influence outcomes. The US presidential election is
a clear cut example where a lot of third-party people under great or strange names are influencing the
outcome. I do not think we should have that in Singapore but we should at the same time be very clear whowe are referring to and how we want to do it.
The other provision is in clause 3(2)(e) about sponsorship. It is quite widely defined and we do not know
what exactly it means. If somebody invites you for a dinner and is a political association, and you pay for the
dinner, would it be considered sponsorship? Or if they have a publication and people advertise, would it also
be sponsorship? What about cost of seminars and conferences? Would it be all right to sponsor research
programmes, or somebody's political organisation, because the research programmes could have impact on
the positions to take? Therefore, this clause needs a bit more clarification.
I have a few suggestions. First, the limit on anonymous donations. I have looked at the British Bill. In UK,
they say up to pound 50, it is anonymous. You only declare if it is more than pound 50. It seems we have
modelled quite a lot on the British Bill. We can take a similar approach and say that if it is less than S$100, it
can be considered anonymous. Because I do not think anybody with $5,000 would go and ask 500 people
to donate $100 each. It is too troublesome and it would not do. The other point is only the big donors will be
the ones who can exert undue influence. Therefore, to keep political societies and political parties
independent, it is better
Column: 279
to have small donors but widespread and mass organisations, because after all winning election is by getting
mass support. And if they do not have ideas that can induce or encourage the ordinary men to contribute,
then the idea dies.
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
The next point is about corporate donations. Corporations cannot vote in an election. It is individuals. The
country is made of individuals. And I do not support the idea of companies making contributions or donations
to political parties. If you want to have rules, let us completely prevent companies or corporate bodies from
donating. In the UK law, they ask for a general meeting of members to decide to give or not to give. But in
UK, the trade unions also have funds to contribute to political parties. Societies do. But in Singapore, our
trade unions do not. Our Trade Unions Act prevents that and there are good reasons for that. Many of our
societies do not do that. Cooperative societies do not do that, and we have good reasons for that. And weshould also not allow individuals to support political parties or political issues with corporate big business
money. We should not come to a state like in the United States where big businesses have undue influence in
our political process. Therefore, if anybody wants to donate, let them donate as individuals and let them be
identified. Let us be transparent about it rather than through the veil of a corporation.
Finally, I also want to say that as long as we keep the other pieces of legislation on elections and allow free
media access for people to express their ideas, there will be less danger of us having to worry about the need
to implement this Bill. In that sense, I support the Bill.
Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Sir, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the Bill which
I rise in support of.
Sir, it is important that in any country, public confidence and the integrity of the political system must be
maintained at all times. Members of the public must have no reason to believe that political parties, policies
and indeed any politician have
Column: 280
been influenced by large donors. As a sovereign and independent country, with a Government that isdemocratically elected, the legitimacy of the Government would depend on the trust that people have. They
must not doubt that the leaders in power decide policies that work in the long-term interest of the country.
Where the perception exists that leaders of the Government or politicians take instructions from people who
donate large sums of money, public trust in Government would surely be undermined and with it, its effective
governance. I therefore welcome the introduction of the Bill.
Having said that, while I support the Bill, as a matter of general principle, there are a number of areas
which the Bill will require clarification and further consideration. I shall dwell on some of these.
First, the Bill distinguishes between foreign and local donations. In the case of foreign donation, the Bill
provides generally that every political association, party, or candidate must not accept a donation if it is
offered by a person who is not a permissible donor. The Bill defines a permissible donor, inter alia, as either
an individual, a Singaporean who is at least 21 years of age or a Singapore-controlled company which carries
on business wholly or mainly in Singapore. The Bill further defines, inter alia, a Singapore-controlled company
to mean a company incorporated in Singapore and the majority of whose directors and members are citizens
of Singapore.
While a direct donation by a foreigner is not possible, it would be relatively quite easy for a foreigner who
seeks to circumvent the restrictions of the Bill by channelling a donation through a permissible donor. As I
said earlier, the definition of a Singapore-controlled company basically defines the company as one that is
incorporated in Singapore, where the majority of directors and members are citizens of Singapore. It would
be possible in certain situations where such conditions are complied with, where you have minority
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
shareholders who are foreigners who are able, in their own ways, to exert
Column: 281
influence on the majority shareholders or even on the Board of such companies. In such instances, while these
companies still qualify as Singapore-controlled companies, I am not sure whether or not the company itself
may not be subject to the control of a foreign party. If the Minister can clarify this point, it would alleviate our
concern on this area.
Secondly, I note that under clause 2(5), it provides that any donation received by a candidate or a political
association by way of a donation via a trustee in his capacity as such shall be regarded as a donation from a
person who is not a permissible donor. The question is: who is a trustee? A trustee is not defined in the Bill.
One can look to the common law for its meaning. Arguably, it can be said that if a person who transfers
property to a permissible donor with the direction that the latter be asked to make a gift of that property to a
political party or a candidate, clause 2(5) would be triggered and in any event, clause 23 would equally apply
in respect of such arrangements. However, Sir, it is possible to get around restrictions in a number of ways.
For instance, a foreign donor can give these gifts to a permissible donor absolutely such that the permissible
donor is not the trustee of these gifts. Once it is determined that these gifts are not held in trust by the
permissible donor, the money can then be channelled to the political party or candidate with whom the
permissible donor and the foreign party are equally sympathetic to.
Thirdly, one does not have to, as a foreign donor, transfer property to the permissible donor in order to
make such donations. Where a foreign donor has strong business influence over a Singapore-controlled
company, it would be possible for the Singapore company to make donations under the influence of the party
or the foreign party. Any donation made can be compensated in the future through some generous contractual
means between the Singapore-controlled company and the foreign party. In citing this as an example, I am
mindful that there are other provisions in the Bill that prevent or restrict the circumvention of such restrictions by other means. Clause
Column: 282
23, for instance, makes it illegal for a person who facilitates such transactions. But as we all know, it is quite
possible, if one is aware of the restrictions in clause 23, to even circumvent these restrictions. In sum, it is not
a foolproof and water-tight provision and it would be possible under certain circumstances for foreign parties
to indirectly make a contribution through a permissible donor in Singapore.
Additionally, if the purpose of the Bill is to maintain public confidence in the political system by preventing
money politics, I do not see why distinction has been made between a foreign donor, and for that matter, a
local donor who has substantial sums of money and can equally be in a position to influence Government
policies through monetary contributions. Allowing that person to have an influence on policies through
financial resources would strike at the very heart of our system of democracy which seeks to represent the
interest of all Singaporeans and not just the moneyed few. It is not inconceivable that with the booming
economy, there would be many local companies and individuals with hoards of cash. It would generally be
conceivable that in an environment that is more liberal, some would consider putting money through the
political system. At the moment, there is nothing to stop rich local individuals from donating money to political
associations and candidates. Fortunately, this party has always maintained the highest level of integrity. Wehave never allowed money to influence our decisions. However, since institutions exist in perpetuity and man
does not, it is vital that we institutionalise our values by regulating all manner of donations and not just confine
the present Bill to foreign donations alone.
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
Fourthly, this Bill, at another level, should not be seen as one of regulating the influence of foreign parties
on local policies. Against this backdrop, there is a larger issue of money politics. Up until this point in time, as
I have said earlier, there is an absence of substantial spending on political campaigns and advertising. This has
helped to keep the cost of running for a political office low.
Column: 283
However, it would be difficult in trying to win the hearts and minds of the electorate not to rely on the mass
communication media in the future to reach out to the constituents. If this happens, the need for funding would
obviously increase. On principle, there is nothing wrong with getting the public to donate to political parties.
What is at issue is the extent to which donors have the ability to influence policies through donations. One
way to overcome this concern is to create a greater atmosphere of transparency in the whole process. I note
that the Bill only requires accounts to be filed with the Registrar for donations above a certain level. There is
nothing in the Bill which requires public disclosure of all donations. It is important that if you want to have a
transparent system that such disclosures be made to the public. Making the system and process transparent
would also have a way of checking the conduct of political parties and candidates in its dealings with donors.
Additionally, by making such disclosures, voters can also make informed choices in an election.
Sir, just some final words about what the opposition has said. They have lamented and griped about how
the Bill is yet another example by the Government to stifle the opposition. They have stated that the Bill does
not proscribe local donations. There is nothing to stop local donors from giving money to opposition
members. They have harped on the fact that this Bill will discourage local donors from making a donation
because particulars of their donations would have to be disclosed to the Government agency. Underlying that
statement is the assumption that because they have made a donation, prosecutions, or in their term,
persecutions would necessarily follow. If I may just ask the opposition Members whether they are able to cite
instances where such has happened. And indeed, in previous years, we have found a more liberal climate andenvironment where people are more prepared to speak up against Government policies. This is a given. And
in this kind of climate, it would be quite difficult to see how this would gel
Column: 284
with the general climate of fear that the opposition Members have painted that the members of the public are
suffering under.
The opposition Members have also made a second assumption, and that is, the politicians are able to
discern in respect of the monies that were given, and still be able to stand up for the principle that they should
not be subject to the influence of money in the way in which they make decisions. I believe this to be very
naive. No established society can run away from the fact that money does influence and the greater the sum
of money, the greater the extent of the influence. I doubt if we can say sincerely that all politicians, if subject
to the influence of money, would not be influenced in the way in which they decide.
Sir, it is precisely because of Singapore 21 that we have confidence in our people, in our system, that
ultimately, when it comes to the crunch, when there is a viable alternative, if for some reason, the integrity of
the present party and the leadership is compromised, there is nothing to stop the citizens of Singapore from
supporting the opposition. There is nothing to stop them from coming out in the open with large monetarycontributions to support an alternative view that will surely take us on. If we do not perform, if the people go
without homes or health services are not looked after, then I certainly do not think that a restriction like this is
going to stop people from making contributions to the opposition parties.
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
The Bill seeks to prevent foreigners from interfering with the ability of Singaporeans to determine their own
destiny. Unless of course the hon. opposition Members are saying that they should sell themselves to the
foreigners, I believe they have no alternative but to support this Bill.
Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I would say that, at this point of time, this Bill is quite unnecessary. The
Government has always boasted that in Singapore, we do not indulge in money politics. As far as I know,
there have been no reported cases in any
Column: 285
election since Singapore became independent in 1965 of candidates wanting to buy votes or to spend large
sums of money to influence voters. So why the necessity for this Bill at this point of time? Mr Jeyaretnam has
a point when he wants to know the rationale and the reason for this Bill. I think the Minister should oblige.
The only case I know of was in the 1976 elections, although Mr Jeyaretnam said it was 1972 when a PAP
candidate who was returned to Parliament accused the Workers' Party of accepting $600,000 from a foreign
source.
Mr Jeyaretnam: 1972 election.
Mr Chiam See Tong: 1972. I am much obliged. Of course, he was roundly sued by the Workers' Party
for defamation and the PAP candidate was unable to prove that the Workers' Party took any money at all
from a foreign source but, nevertheless, he won the case based on technicalities. The fact that remains till
today is that neither the ruling party nor the opposition parties indulge in any form of money politics. I believe
the Government is very proud of that fact and has said so many times. In that case, I thought that the status
quo would remain.
This Political Donations Bill therefore comes as a surprise to me. Money politics has not been part of the
political culture of Singapore. As far as I know, all opposition candidates who took part in the election run
their election campaigns on a shoestring budget. I believe that generally, the PAP candidates spend more on
the elections than the opposition candidates. We can see that the PAP election rallies are much more posh
than the opposition ones. We also notice that in some PAP election rallies, at least at the ones held in Potong
Pasir, the PAP spent money on hiring huge buses to ferry supporters, especially old folks, to attend the
election rallies held there. The opposition, as far as I know, has not spent any money to transport any
supporters to their election rallies. The people just come spontaneously to attend opposition rallies.Therefore, the opposition, up to today, has not spent much money and certainly has not received any money
from foreign
Column: 286
sources. For that reason, I wonder why this Bill is necessary.
Sir, in Singapore there is also a cap on election spending. Candidates are limited at one time to only 50
cents per voter. But now, the Parliamentary Elections Act has been amended to allow a candidate to spend
$2.50 per voter. As far as I know, opposition candidates have never exceeded that limit set down by the law.I, for myself, have always spent very little money. When I first started in 1976, I spent only $3,500 per
election. And at the last general elections, I spent not more than $10,000. But then again, my constituency of
Potong Pasir is the smallest in Singapore. It has only 19,000 voters. It can therefore be seen that there is no
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
need to spend lots of money to win an election, but only plenty of time and sweat.
Therefore, we ask again: what is the necessity to enact this law? Why does the Government suddenly want
political parties and also other organised bodies, whose main activity is in politics, to declare donations given
to them? In any event, the law already requires all candidates in elections to declare the amount of money
they spend on each election. I am just wondering whether the Government has introduced this Bill as it
envisages that there is a possibility of candidates advertising themselves on TV. When that comes, of course,
I say lots of money will be needed. Like in America, the cost of election campaigning escalates dramatically.In the Presidential elections, I believe that each candidate can spend up to $200 million. But, in Singapore, as
there is no election campaigning through the TV media, I do not think there is a need for large sums of money.
At the moment, of course, candidates are only allowed party political broadcast for a few minutes over the
local TV. The time allowed depends on the number of candidates and, of course, this is very unfair to the
opposition parties, because many of the opposition parties fielded less than six candidates and are not
allowed even the 21/2 minutes broadcast.
The opposition says that there is no need for such a law at this point in time.
Column: 287
The only reason for wanting this law is to curb the opposition further. People who give money to the ruling
party do not mind revealing their names. But in the context of Singapore today, in our culture, people are still
generally fearful of being seen to be supporting the opposition. For this very reason, I think this law is a great
disadvantage to the opposition. Sir, it will leave the opposition parties with a lot of problems in raising funds.
Any political party which cannot account for large sums of money it receives can easily be discredited. So
there is no need actually for this law.
In the past, there was a case when a Minister in the ruling party accepted money from the Americans. This
has been mentioned. His name is Chew Swee Kee. When he was found out, the PAP relished at it. The
PAP, at that time, was in the opposition. It publicised the fact and helped the PAP to win the elections in
1959. The point is that if any political party is found to have received money from abroad, it will definitely be
discredited. Any party which wants to accept money from foreign sources will have to think twice before it
does so. Because, once it is found out, the political effect will be disastrous. People will wonder whether that
party is working for the interest of Singapore or for some foreign powers or foreigners. A party that accepts
money from foreign sources will be seen as a tool of foreigners and cannot be trusted. As this is a very
important Bill, I would also support that it be sent to a Select Committee for further deliberations.
Sir, I have just got two more points to raise in regard to the provisions of the Bill. I think the $5,000 limit
for anonymous donations is definitely too low. I do not know how the Minister has plucked this figure from
the air. I do not know on what basis this figure of $5,000 has been decided. I would suggest that anonymous
donations be allowed up to the limit of at least $23,000, which is about half the amount of election expenses
allowed under the Parliamentary Elections Act for Potong Pasir constituency, which is the
Column: 288
smallest constituency in Singapore. I think that is a fair basis to take, half of the election expenses which isallowed for Potong Pasir constituency. I think that cannot probably even support two candidates. So what
harm can it do?
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
The next provision I would like to comment is on clause 12 - annual donation report. Sir, this is important.
I heard from the Minister that it cannot be divulged to members of the public. If it cannot be divulged to
members of the public, it must at least be divulged to the opposition.
Sir, the PAP is the Government. It can, at any time, see the political donations report. Is the Registrar of
Political Donations going to swear under a statutory declaration that he will not show those reports to anyone,
even to members of the Government? Sir, on this point, I think the Government must be transparent. If the
Government is not transparent, I am certain that people will believe that the Government can have a chance to peep at those reports but no one else can. In other words, Sir, this is like playing cards where I show you all
my cards, but you keep your cards only to your chest. I think members of the public would like to know who
are the people who donate to the PAP, even if it is their members or the Ministers themselves. I think this
must be seen to be transparent. If it is not, I am afraid the Political Donations Bill will have no credibility at all.
Sir, the opposition would demand for complete transparency, as far as this point is concerned.
Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I will try to answer as many as possible the points raised by Members.
Generally, I think Members support the need for the Bill. As to why we want to prohibit foreign funding to the
political parties and political associations which have an effect on the political activities and development of Singapore, we all agree that Singapore's politics is for Singaporeans, and not for others to come and interfere
via any means, whether by financial means or other assistance. Because, whatever form the assistance takes,
there is no question that the recipient will, in
Column: 289
some way or other, be beholden to that foreign organisation. And I do not think any Singaporean organisation
or political party will want to put itself in that position of being beholden to a foreign organisation, and I think
this point is rightly pointed out by Mr Chiam.
In Singapore, we actually do not need a lot of money for elections. The Parliamentary Elections Act lays
down quite clearly how much each candidate can spend, ie, up to $2.50 per voter, and that is the cap. And it
is not an expensive affair to run a campaign in Singapore. Unlike the case of many other countries where
candidates have to spend millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, to secure even a primary candidacy,
or as a candidate for, say, the American Presidential elections. In Singapore, there is no such need and
therefore it is easy. The cost of entry into politics by any Singaporean who has an interest to take part in
elections is easy.
Secondly, for the PAP, we have taken upon ourselves to observe very strict rules about donations to the party. No money goes to the Ministers or the MPs direct. Whatever donation does not go to the individual. It
goes to the party. And we also make it clear that whoever give the donation can expect no favour and can
expect no preference in whatever dealings they may have with the Government or with the party. They do
donate and we tell them that they do it because they believe that the PAP has been running the country well
and they want to support an organisation like the PAP to perpetuate the prosperity of Singapore, not for any
other reason. It is not to support the PAP to favour them in their business or in their personal affairs. That is
the basic rule of the PAP.
Having said that, this Bill does not prohibit anyone who has an interest to donate to the political party or
association, so long as he is a permissible donor. And we must have the rules such that we can ensure that the
donation comes from permissible donors. On the occasion that it is not, because a Singaporean donor or a
permissible source is prepared to allow
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
involving a lot of Singaporeans. We say, "Come and take part. Make sure that you have an interest in
Singapore, its continued prosperity and success. Therefore, do not just leave everything
Column: 292
to the Government and have a say in things that will interest you or affect you." So it is the Government that
has generated this interest and there is no particular reason why the Government wants to restrict the growth
of these civil societies.
On the other hand, should such groups or organisations come to the Government to ask for money, the
question to ask is: should Government money be used for their purpose or should it be for a general purpose
of all Singaporeans? We cannot, on the one hand, say, "Please, give me money." And next say, "Please, let
me be independent and completely be left alone." When they receive Government money, they will be subject
to Government influence in some way or other. But if they want to be totally independent, then they must
depend on themselves and on people, Singaporeans, who will support their cause. Then they will be
completely independent.
Mr Thomas asked me to define "sponsorship" and whether dinners, research, etc. are considered as
"sponsorship". Again, I really cannot explain in great detail what is and what is not considered as sponsorship.
We will have to look at the whole circumstances and the context before a decision can be made, which
eventually can be challenged.
On anonymous donations, he asked why not limit to less than $100 and therefore has no limit of $5,000 in
total. We have applied different rules according to our own circumstances. In Britain or America, they cannot
have an anonymous donation of more than pound 50 or more than $50. If they can generate 100,000 donors,
so be it. In Singapore, we think that $5,000 a year is pretty reasonable. If, over time, we think that that sum is
not enough because the political associations' expenses have grown and so on, we will look at that. This is thefirst time we have a Bill and this is the first time that we have started something like that after examining all the
examples of other countries, and we say, let us give it a try. It will not be cast in concrete and stone.
Column: 293
With the experience that we have gained, and difficulties that we may experience, we will amend the Bill as
time goes on.
The question which two or three of our opposition Members want to know is: why have this Bill now?
What is the urgency? I do not think there is any better time than having this Bill now. Consciousness has been
raised on political funding, soft money, soft advertisement and all kinds of things that have happened in other
countries for years. If Members remember the 1996 Presidential Election in America, it has long past for
years, and now the controversy still rages on. In our newspapers the last couple of weeks since the Bill was
made known, the newspapers have run many stories, and Singaporeans ought to know that there is such a
problem in other countries. In Singapore's case, the PAP Government always thrives on its ability to
anticipate problems. We are not saying that the problem will come straightaway tomorrow, in the next
election, but we will never know. So let us have the law ready. Today is as good as any other day.
If Members say, do not bring back the history of 1959 or do not talk about 1976 or 1988, these are realexamples of how foreign governments, whether it is a government directed at the top or by somebody at the
top, or somebody else doing the job, or a foreign intelligence organisation, like the 1976 case, or just one
diplomat in an embassy, these cases happened and they are real examples. Do we need to wait for more
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
examples before we say, "Let us do something about it." What will Singaporeans say? They will say, "There
you are, you are not doing your job. You should know that these have been happening in other countries and
yet you are slow in responding. We thought we pay you a lot of money to do a good job." So let us not fool
ourselves. We do not know that such a problem will come about. Neither do we want such a problem to
come about. But there is no reason why we should not have a law like that today. Because today is better
than never. It is better than tomorrow.
Column: 294
Mr Low Thia Khiang is worried about anonymous donations and now he cannot raise money because
even people are afraid to give him 50 cents. That fear is really not well founded. If Singaporeans want to give
him money, what is the difficulty in saying, "I am a Singaporean. This is my identity card. Please record it."
What is their worry? It is a simple thing. That procedure does not apply to the Workers' Party or to the SDP
only. It applies to the PAP as well. It applies to all the PAP's 83 branches. When I briefed my GPC, they
said this is going to cause problems for them to keep detailed records. I said so be it, because we want this
system to be established today. The Party will set up the structure, a record keeping method, to make sure
that we record. If the opposition is really shorthanded, and cannot find people to help them understand the
system, I have asked my officials to come up with a simple guide to help them to capture such records. We
hope that can be useful to them. But it is up to them. They can keep their own records.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Without any administrative assistants how do we keep records?
Mr Wong Kan Seng: The Member is paid $250 and $500 to employ a secretarial assistant and
legislative assistant respectively. He can use that money. If the Government were to give more money to the
Member to employ an administrative assistant to keep records, we will only give it to two oppositionMembers, one from the Workers' Party and the other from SPP, and the rest will go to the PAP Members.
He will then say this is unfair because the PAP has more MPs. We will settle our own problems. He settles
his and we will settle by our method.
Mr Chiam is concerned that the list of donors is only made known to the PAP. That would not be the
case. No member of the public will have access to this record. It is only the officials. He asked me whether
the Ministers will see the list of donors. There is no need for us to do so. The purpose of this Bill is not to find
out who donated to the Workers' Party, SDP or
Column: 295
whoever, or even the PAP. It is up to them to decide who they want to receive the money from. If we know
who their donors are, so what? How does that affect them? Are we going to chase after their donors? Is the
PAP going to run after their donors so that they will say, "Let us have your money instead of it going to the
Workers' Party?" Let us be realistic. We do not need the people who give them the money. We have other
people who give us money. We give the money ourselves. Most of the money that goes into the Party for
election purposes comes from the PAP MPs and Ministers. We paid for our expenses. Of course, there are
also other well-wishers who help us. So be it. If others want to help the opposition, fine! Go ahead. But
nobody is interested in knowing who their donors are and I do not think that we need to make known the listof donors. In fact, by making known the list of donors, it will discourage people from donating. They may say
that in that case they would rather not be known, whether to be known to be supporting the PAP or the
Workers' Party or the SPP. What for? Why all the hassles? Let us keep our money and enjoy ourselves. So
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
it is better that we do not disclose the list but only to keep it for record purposes and use the records when
necessary.
Mr Jeyaretnam's long list of other points really just boils down to one thing. He thinks that this is going to
stifle the Workers' Party, and the failure of the Workers' Party to get money and people is the fault of the
PAP. How can this be so? He has led the party for 28 years since 1972, and maybe even before that. For 28
years what has changed in the Workers' Party? Not very much, but yet the world has moved on. It has
changed a lot. What has changed in the Workers' Party? People will know that it has not changed very much.What has changed in the PAP? A lot. And that is how we have kept ourselves relevant and stayed relevant.
That is why the people say, "That is the Party I want to run Singapore, and we will continue to vote you, not
the party that cannot even get its acts together." If they cannot even get their acts together, how
Column: 296
can they get Singapore together? Let us face it. So do not blame their problems on us. If they cannot attract
people to join them, do not blame us. If they cannot get people to donate money to them, do not blame us
either. They only have themselves to blame.
His other litany of things is about digging up the background. Actually he dug up all the background
himself. I have even forgotten about the case in 1972 when the Workers' Party tried to sue one of the PAP
MPs and the case went to court and failed and that led to all his troubles eventually. That has got nothing to
do with the PAP. It is the courts. He believes in the court system. He took the case to court and lost. He
challenged it and he still lost. How could that be our fault? Whether it was a technical reason or whatever it
was, he lost. If he believes that F.A. Chua had been biased, he should have taken up the case. He said that
because of this case in 1972, we amended the Constitution to make sure that we cannot surrender our
sovereignty to a foreign power or foreign country without a referendum. He has forgotten that this change
came about because the Workers' Party, he himself in particular, was calling for the re-merger of Singapore.All right, if he wants to do that, he must go through a referendum. Supposing it happened that the Workers'
Party came into power in 1972 or 1976 ---
Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask by way of clarification?
Mr Speaker: Is the Minister giving way?
Mr Wong Kan Seng: No. Please sit down.
Mr Speaker: He is not giving way. Resume your seat, Mr Jeyaretnam.
Mr Jeyaretnam: All right, I will take it up.
Mr Wong Kan Seng: If his party were to come into power and say we would re-join Malaysia, I think
Singaporeans would have a right to decide. Therefore, we said, let us amend the Constitution to provide for a
referendum should Singapore decide to surrender its sovereignty.
Column: 297
Is this a Bill against political development? How could it be? We have got political development. But if the
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
opposition have not progressed, that is not our fault. Singaporeans have progressed. Singaporeans are more
vocal. Singaporeans have supported many organisations, set up websites, etc. And I think they have also
grown in the political process. But we cannot allow any foreign organisation, any foreign power, any foreign
individuals, to come and tell our organisations, Singaporeans, associations, what they should do in order to
propagate their interest. That is not right.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, may I seek clarification from the Minister? I would like to know
from the Minister what is the basis for the $5,000 anonymous donations that are allowed in one financial year.And why does the Minister prefer a capping of anonymous donations to $5,000 in a financial year, unlike in
some countries where they cap a single donation, thereby allowing small donors? By doing that, is the
Minister aware that he is actually imposing a very tedious process on the opposition, especially opposition
parties which basically receive small sums of donations? Is that purposely making it difficult for the opposition
to keep accounts and to make it more difficult for the opposition to receive small sums, knowing that we
depend a lot on small sum donors whereas I believe PAP would not need the money?
Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask my question as well. Will the Minister quote chapter and verse of the
statement he says that the Workers' Party made calling for a merger again with Malaysia? When was it made,where, and where was it reported? Could he let us have all that?
Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam's memory is very short. I think we should leave it to him to do
his own research and find the information for himself. I am not here to re-educate him.
Mr Jeyaretnam: You tell me.
Column: 298
Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Low asked why we cap at $5,000. Of course, we can choose the other way,
like what the British and Americans do, cap at pound 50 or $50, which means that they can at most receive
anonymous donations of $50 or less, and they can receive a lot of such small donations. Frankly, I do not
even know that the opposition receive a lot of small donations and neither am I bothered about it. But, as I
said, for the $5,000, it is just a macro number, it is a total sum, it makes it easier for them to receive small
sums of anonymous donations up to $5,000 without keeping record. If they have to keep record, and we
make the limit at $50, I think they will be very much troubled by it. And if $5,000 eventually is not enough,
when we amend the Bill the next time, we will look at it.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Further clarification, Sir. Is the Minister aware that if it is more than $5,000 in a
year, any single donation, even 50 cents, in order to keep that amount, you will have to have records. It is
more tedious than having, let us say, more than $50, and you have to record. Or we do not need to keep
record at all.
Mr Wong Kan Seng: If people give him 50 cents and he finds it too tedious, ask them to give him $5 or
$50, make it a big figure, so that he does not have to keep tedious records. But actually no record is required
of any anonymous donations up to $5,000.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: After $5,000?
Mr Wong Kan Seng: After $5,000, he will keep a record.
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
The Chairman: Mr Jeyaretnam, do you wish to speak in Committee?
Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I wish to speak on certain specific clauses in the Bill. These are clauses 2, 7, 22, 28
and 29. But before I speak directly on these clauses, may I say that I am concerned because this Bill is on a
subject that concerns Singaporeans, not just political parties, not just political
Column: 300
associations, like NGOs, but Singaporeans generally. And that is why I wanted the Bill to be moved to a
Select Committee so that Singaporeans may be heard as to what they think about the Bill, not just the NGOs
or the political parties, but Singaporeans, what do they think about the Bill. But you have ruled that I cannot
speak on the motion, so I have to go on and speak about the clauses on which I have objections.
My objections stem from the fact that in Singapore, elections would appear to be completely a matter for
the Government, whereas in other countries, elections are a matter for the people and there is an independent
elections body which controls the conduct of elections and makes all the rules and regulations. But that is not
so in Singapore. In Singapore, elections would appear to be the prerogative of the Prime Minister.
The Chairman: Order, Mr Jeyaretnam.
Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes. But I am coming to my section.
The Chairman: Mr Jeyaretnam, can I point out to you that when we are in Committee, you are to speak
on the clauses?
Mr Jeyaretnam: All right.
The Chairman: I see that you are debating the principles of the Bill which we have already discussed
during the Second Reading stage. Can I ask you to confine your speech to the clauses which you have
highlighted?
Mr Jeyaretnam: I will try and explain why I am speaking on these clauses.
Under clause 2, the definition of " political association", in subclause (b) of that, as at present drafted, is, in
my opinion, far too vague and appears to catch everyone. The term " political association" which is to beapplied to other than registered political parties should be spelt out with greater certainty. The Bill, as it now
stands, reads:
Column: 301
" " political associations" means -
(b) an organisation . whose objects or activities relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore and which isdeclared by the Minister, by order in the Gazette, to be a political association for the purposes of this Act;".
The operative words are "whose objects or activities relate wholly or mainly to politics".
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
Sir, politics is something that concerns the general populace. That is politics. So if there is an organisation
that wishes to speak on something which concerns the general populace or even a section of the community,
it can be described as being a political association. We take the case of the women's organisation, AWARE,
which is concerned with the rights of women and violence to women. Does it become a political association?
Of course, their concern can be called political because it affects a large section of the community, the women
in Singapore. For that reason, is it to be considered a political association? What about NGOs? We do not
have many NGOs in Singapore. But we have one or two now, concerned not with promoting any particular political issue or political object, but have, as its aims and object, the promotion of greater democracy,
greater transparency and greater accountability for the society. Is that political? Of course, it is, if you want.
But is it an organisation that is attempting to influence any particular policy or object for Singapore when it is
simply concerned with giving people a greater share in decision making?
Take the Open Singapore Centre (OSC) of which I am the Chairman. We have said that our aim is simply
to promote transparency and accountability through openness in Singapore. Is that politics? Of course, one
can say yes, it is political. But that is something that concerns the entire populace in Singapore. So why should
that be declared a political association? It is not concerned with promoting a particular issue or calling for a particular piece of legislation in this country. All it seeks to do is to promote openness, awareness and
accountability among the public. The other objection is that the power is given to the Minister to declare
which organisation is a
Column: 302
political association for the purposes of this Act. I have no doubt that the Open Singapore Centre will be
declared political, if not the other organisations.
My recommendation to the Government is that that decision as to whether an organisation is a politicalassociation or not should not be left to the Minister. We do not have any Elections Commissioner. We do not
have any Election Commission. It therefore should be left to somebody completely outside the Government,
someone independent, and who is appointed for this purpose in consultation with the other political parties in
Singapore so that he may, after listening to the organisation itself or other political parties as to what they
think, then decide whether the organisation is a political association for the purposes of this Bill. That is
important if we are going to encourage the setting up of NGOs in Singapore for the good of the people.
NGOs exist in almost every other country. But they are a rare commodity in Singapore. And from what I
can see of the UK Bill, which is before Parliament, it does not prohibit NGOs from receiving funds fromoverseas. It is common knowledge that a number of the NGOs in the United Kingdom have links with other
NGOs overseas and they get funds. So what is the objection to allowing organisations which have got nothing
to do with promoting any particular policy in Singapore from functioning in Singapore for the good of the
people and receiving money, if necessary, from like-minded organisations outside Singapore? For example, if
we have a human rights organisation, I would love to see one here, what is wrong with the human rights
organisation in other countries saying, "Well, we got to help you to carry out your work. We will give you
some money." What is wrong with that?
The other clause on the same theme is the appointment of the Registrar. This is provided in clause 7 which
reads, "The Minister may, by notification in the Gazette, appoint a public officer to be the Registrar of Political
Donations for the
Column: 303
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
purposes of this Act, and such number of Assistant Registrars ofPolitical Donations as he considers
necessary." By clause 29 of this Bill, the Registrar is given sweeping powers. By clause 29, the Registrar may
call upon any person to produce, for his inspection, any books, documents or other records relating to the
income and expenditure of the political association as the Registrar may reasonably require. He may also call
upon them to furnish him or any person authorised by him with all information, explanation relating to the
income and expenditure of any political association. And by sub-clause (3) of this clause, he is empowered to
enter any premises occupied by the political association at any reasonable time, even if he is not required togive notice, and to inspect any books, documents or other records relating to the income and expenditure of
the political association.
The Chairman: Order. Your time is up.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, may I make a few points on a particular clause?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I am referring to clause 21 of the Bill. This clause requires multiple small
donations to political associations to be reported to the Registrar. It seems to me that even if these people are
permissible donors and if they donate more than $10,000 a year, in aggregate, the donor has to report to the
Registrar and give all the necessary details. May I know what is the rationale of this clause in the Bill? And
does this clause violate the rights of Singaporeans in making donations? Is it not a discrimination against
making donations to political parties? You can donate whatever amount you want to the National Kidney
Foundation, or anywhere. But why is it that when you are making multiple small donations to political
associations, you are required under the Bill to report to the Registrar and the punishment for failing to report
is quite hefty? Why is it so? What is the rationale?
Column: 304
Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam was not listening when I was explaining the meaning of
" political associations", and what would be covered and under what circumstances would the Minister make a
declaration or gazette that they would be political associations. I have explained in great detail the
circumstances, and I gave an example. On his question about AWARE, I gave an example in fact and said
that if AWARE depends on the money to help the battered wives or children in the Family Service Centre,for example, so be it, if it is not campaigning for a particular cause to change the law or the Government, and
therefore they can accept such foreign donations. If any other organisation, say, an NGO, wants to receive
money from like-minded people or organisation overseas, and that purpose is to influence the political issues
in Singapore, then it says that these are impermissible sources if such organisations, or NGOs, are gazetted as
a political association. Right now, I have no intention to gazette any organisation. But if he says his OSC is
going to get money from like-minded organisations overseas to support his political cause, then I will have to
take a look at it.
Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask by way of clarification?
The Chairman: Mr Wong, are you giving way?
Mr Wong Kan Seng: Go ahead.
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
Mr Jeyaretnam: Why does the Minister consider the promotion of greater democracy, accountability
and transparency to be something undesirable for Singapore when it has got nothing to do with promoting any
particular legislation or policy for this country?
Mr Wong Kan Seng: Nowhere have I said in my speech just now that the promotion of democracy or
political protest in Singapore by Singaporean is undesirable. Nowhere have I said that. But if a particular
organisation is going to stretch its hands out and ask for a donation from a so-called "like-mindedorganisation" overseas to support his cause, I would think we should, and every
Column: 305
Singaporean should, examine the motive as to why that organisation wants to give the money. The political
process in Singapore is for Singaporeans to decide. It is not for foreigners to come here and help us
champion our cause. If he has reasons to receive foreign money, then he should also have the motive
questioned. Right now, there is no question that I am going to gazette any organisation. But if there is cause to
do so, then we would do it.
Mr Jeyaretnam talks about the powers of the Registrar. The powers are there just in case the Registrar is
obstructed from doing his work in examining the books, he would have to go into the premises to examine the
books. If such books or accounts are not made available, then he must find ways to get access to such
records and there is no reason for anybody to fear. If that organisation has not done anything wrong, then that
organisation should have no fear. There is a Chinese saying that says, "if he has not done anything harmful,
then even a knock on the door in the middle of the night should not frighten him". But in Singapore, it is such a
small place. If we do not want people to do it, do not do it because one day, he will be found out. There is
also another Chinese saying, "ruo yao ren bu zhi, chu fei ji mo wei" which means if we do not want people to
know, do not do it. If he thinks he has done something wrong, then he will have to account for it.
Mr Jeyaretnam: Can I seek a clarification?
Mr Wong Kan Seng: I think he has enough of the time. Let me finish answering Mr Low Thia Khiang.
Mr Low asked why we want to have reports on donors who make multiple donations that amount to
$10,000. I thought I have explained that in my statement. If an individual donates less than $10,000, there is
no need for the donor to write to the Registrar to declare. If that donor donates $10,000, there is also no
need for him to declare because the political association or party would have declared. But if he donatesmultiple sums
Column: 306
aggregating $10,000, then we want him to declare because that is a counter evasion measure that the
Registrar would want to know to keep track of non-reporting by political associations. So, it is just a purpose
of counter checking.
Mr Jeyaretnam: May I have your permission to clarify my objection to clause 29 in the Bill?
The Chairman: Yes, what do you wish to clarify?
Mr Jeyaretnam: It is simply this. Should not that power also be given to an independent person and not
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill
Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, on a point of order. I would like to point out that Mr Jeyaretnam was given
more than adequate time to speak up on the clauses. He has made full use of his time and, in fact, Mr
Chairman, you have just ruled that he had exceeded his time and he was told to sit down, but he is using this
device to seek clarification.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, may I have further clarification from the Minister on clause 21? The Minister says that it might be a disguise because you might make multiple donations. But what is wrong with a
permissible donor making donations amounting to more than $10,000 to individual organisations? Why
should you put the onus on the permissible donor to report to the Registrar? What is the rationale for doing
that?
Mr Wong Kan Seng: There is nothing wrong for that individual to make multiple donations amounting to
$10,000. But if he gives it to one organisation and that organisation would not be able in any way to report it,
the donor should report it too as a counter evasion measure. But if he makes small multiple donations that
amount to $10,000 to different organisations, then it does not amount to more than $10,000 for each of theorganisations and, therefore, he does not need to make a declaration to the Registrar.
Column: 307
Clauses 1 to 37 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Schedule -
The Chairman: The Minister has given notice of two amendments to the Schedule. The notice of
amendments is notified in the Order Paper Supplement circulated today. As inadequate notice has been given
of these amendments, it is subject to the assent of the majority of Members present. Is it the pleasure of hon.
Members that the amendments be moved?
Hon. Members indicated assent.
Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I beg to move,
In page 33, line 19, to delete the word "case" and to insert "cash".
This is a correction of a typographical error.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I beg to move,
In page 34, line 3, to delete the word "section 21(1)" and to insert "section 20(1)".
This is also a correction of a typographical error.
Amendment agreed to.
8/13/2019 2000-05-22 Parliamentary Debate - Political Donations Bill