SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.12 p.m.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Societies Ordinance is an ancient and venerable piece of legislation, but like many ancient and venerable things, after 50 years of life, it has become outdated and it has become necessary to eliminate its weaknesses which have been found in the light of experience, and to strengthen the Ordinance to deal with undesirable and shady societies, especially those which are used as haunts for secret society gangsters, or gambling clubs, often under the protection of secret societies, or clubs run for other forms of vice or formed for the purpose of subverting or swindling the public. The House is aware of the action taken by my Ministry to dissolve quite a number of societies which were being used for unlawful gaming purposes and contrary to the aims and objects of the societies. It is obvious that the Societies Ordinance must be revised and made more effective as a weapon against the corrupting influence of social vice and against activities which are detrimental to the growth of a new and healthy society. The opportunity has also been taken in the Bill to tidy up a number of anomalies in the old Ordinance, which would make it neater, more effective and more consistent in the working of a number of its provisions. There is nothing suspicious or sinister in the Bill.

Clause 2 of the Bill redefines "society", and the principal effect of this change of definition is to require Freemason Lodges and political associations to register, since there are no good grounds for excluding them from the general requirements imposed on societies. Leaving the Masonic Lodges outside the provisions of this Ordinance would be an anomaly. The Government has no ulterior motive in requiring political associations to register, since the Government already has the power to require a political association to register by declining to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to declare it to be a political association. In this respect, it is of interest to note that the Singapore Branch of the Malayan Chinese Association, the Partai Rakyat, the Pan Malayan Islamic Party and the Katong Residents' Association are already registered societies, whilst the Party I belong to, the People's Action Party, has been exempted from registration since its foundation. On the other hand, the Singapore Labour Front, the U.M.N.O., the Liberal-Socialist Party, the Malayan Indian Congress, the Workers' Party, the Citizens' Party, the Malay Union, and the Singapore People's Alliance have been declared to be political associations. By requiring political parties to register, the Government is only aiming at uniformity, and is doing what is already in force in the Federation.

The clause also removes the distinction, unnecessary in the view of the Government, between "registered" and "exempted" societies and all will now have to be registered. There is, in fact, very little practical difference between registered and exempted societies. The Registrar already has the power under the Ordinance to order any exempted society to furnish him with such information as he sees fit to require.

It has been the practice for the Registrar to decline to register a society if he is not satisfied that the society's rules provide properly for the running and control of the society. Clause 3 of the Bill makes statutory provision for this practice and also makes it the positive duty of the Registrar to refuse registration to a society which appears to him to be likely to be used for unlawful purposes, such as gaming or for any purposes prejudicial to or incompatible with the peace, welfare or good order in Singapore, or that the application for registration does not comply with the provisions of the Ordinance, or that it is contrary to the national or public interest that it should be registered. Refusal to register on grounds of unlawful purposes or those prejudicial to peace, welfare and good order is already provided for in the Ordinance. Refusal on grounds of being contrary to the national or public interest covers cases in which, although there are good grounds for refusal, it might be undesirable (for instance, to protect sources of information) to have to show that the society in question is likely to be used specifically for unlawful purposes or for purposes prejudicial to the peace, welfare and good order in Singapore. Then again in the process of nation building, the development of a Malayan consciousness and a Malayan culture, the formation of societies which cater for purely sectional interests or which have a narrow communal bias would be discouraged as being contrary to the national interest.

At the Committee stage, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will be moving an amendment of which I have given notice, to allow for appeal to the Minister against the Registrar's decision. Sir, as you know, in most Ordinances where licences or permits are issued by the licensing officer or licensing authority, there is always provision for appeal to the Minister by any person aggrieved by a decision of the licensing authority. However, due to an oversight, when section 4 of the present Ordinance was deleted and redrafted in clause 3, the present provision for appeal was inadvertently left out. This is the only reason for its omission.

Clause 4 is a transitional provision to allow existing societies now exempted from registration a year's time in which to apply for registration, and such societies will not be deemed to be unlawful societies until such period has elapsed.

Clause 5 of the Bill makes it unlawful for societies organised outside Malaya to carry on activities in Singapore unless registered under the Societies Ordinance. This same clause and clause 11 make unlawful any society which changes its address without permission or which has one or more of the same office-bearers, or a similar name or membership, as a society previously dissolved. These provisions are aimed primarily at fly-by-night gambling clubs, many of which have been known from experience to adopt these tactics either to evade dissolution or nullify the effects of dissolution as unlawful societies.

Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 10 enhance the maximum penalties for offences connected with unlawful societies, and clause 9 provides that evidence of repute shall be admissible to prove the existence of a society or that a person is a member of a society. The increased penalties should act as a more effective deterrent to would-be offenders against the provisions of this Ordinance, and the admissibility of evidence of repute would help in proving the existence of illegal societies. The organisers of such societies are usually secretive about their activities and it is therefore difficult to obtain direct evidence of the existence of such societies.

Sir, in Singapore, secret societies have deteriorated from the old Triad societies into mercenary gangs of criminal hoodlums and the Societies Ordinance has not been of much help to the Police and the Criminal Courts in dealing with them. The only provision in the Ordinance which materially assists the Police and Courts to deal with the criminal members of the secret societies is that which permits the Registrar, in certain circumstances, to order a man to have his fingerprints recorded and his photograph taken. And the wording of this part of the Bill, having been drafted to assist the Registrar to obtain information about the Triad societies rather than to provide for the identification of members of an organised criminal underworld, is unsatisfactory for Singapore's present need. What is now needed is that the Police and the Courts should be assisted in criminal cases by the availability, as evidence that an accused person is a member of an unlawful society, of the opinion of an independent authority inquiring specially into the existence, membership or operations of secret societies. Clause 12 of the Bill now before the House therefore amends section 22 (4) of the Societies Ordinance to make it clear that any person ordered to have his fingerprints and photograph taken by the Registrar of Societies is, in his opinion, either a member of, or intimately connected with, an unlawful society.

Sir, these then are the aims and objects of this Bill. As can be seen, it is not aimed at any legitimate, respectable or lawful body, party or association, but against undesirable and shady societies and as such will, I am confident, receive the support of this House.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.28 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Minister has said, this Ordinance is hoary with age and it is time certain of its provisions were brought out into the open and aired; but while doing it, one has also to consider the effect of the amendments upon the social life of the people of Singapore as they have been accustomed to live it over the last 100 years.

The structure of the Societies Ordinance is this. Firstly, it defines any association of ten or more persons to be a society, and then it goes on specifically to exempt certain categories of persons or companies from the operation of the Ordinance. And then it says that such other societies as are not registrable under the provisions of the Ordinance shall be divided into two categories, namely, registered societies and exempted societies. So that then we have three categories: one, the non-registrable society; two, the registered society; and, three, the exempted society.

With regard to the non-registrable societies, Mr Speaker, Sir, the majority of persons or companies exempted are either persons or companies who are already registered under existing Ordinances; the two sub-sections which do not come within that category of persons or companies are Freemasons and the political associations. In respect of the Freemasons and the political associations, this Bill seeks to make them come within its scope.

With regard to exempted societies, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is also proposed to make them all registered societies and to give them a year within which to register.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are a number of societies particularly interested in sport, and most of them are exempted under the provisions of the Societies Ordinance. The proposal that all societies should be registered and should have a registered address and can only meet at their registered address would have very serious repercussions on the sport of the country, because most of the societies would then cease to exist and all those who are now interested in hockey and football particularly will find it very difficult to carry on their sporting activities. It is important that this should be encouraged.

The other matter, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that new provisions with regard to registrability have been introduced into the Bill, mainly the point whether it is in the national or public interest. I do not wish to speak very much on this Bill at this stage, Mr Speaker, Sir, because I have given notice that I will move a number of amendments. My own view is that this Bill is sufficiently important, and will have sufficient repercussions on the society such as we are accustomed to in Singapore, that it needs very careful and serious consideration. At the appropriate time, it is hoped that a motion will be made to refer this Bill to a Select Committee and that the Minister will find it possible to accede to that request.

3.33 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): I wish to assure Members of this House that careful consideration has been given to the provisions contained in the proposed amending Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first preface my remarks by drawing attention to this one very important fact? That it is one thing to put the law in order, but it is another thing to implement and administer its provisions in a workmanlike and practical manner. There is one cogent point which the Member for Farrer Park has brought out, namely, the difficulty which the sporting and athletic clubs will find in executing their business at the registered address. But I think he overlooks this one important provision: that illegality does not flow simply from the departure of the strict wording of the Ordinance. Illegality and the punishment of illegality by the State only comes about in cases where the State and, in this case, the State Advocate-General, who is an independent officer in respect of all prosecutions, is satisfied that there was, in fact, a criminal act.

There are, at present, 1,007 exempted societies of which the People's Action Party is one. I would like briefly to categorise them. Racial and communal societies 11% Religious societies - churches, temples, mosques, societies of Christians, Buddhists, Muslims ... ... ... 10% Cultural societies - old boys' associations, alumni associations, literary societies, art and dance clubs, music and dramatic societies, education societies ... 14% Trade associations ... ... ... 14% Sports and athletic clubs ... ... 31% Social clubs ... ... ... ... 9% Welfare associations - benevolent societies, tenant and dwellers' associations ... 7% Youth organisations, including boys' and girls' clubs and youth clubs ... 2% Miscellaneous ... ... ... 2%

There are, in that diverse miscellany of associations, certain groups in which we would have no governmental interest whatsoever. But I think the Members opposite, particularly those who were responsible for the last Government, would appreciate that cultural associations and sometimes even sporting associations are not often what they profess to be. It is one thing to say that one has formed an association for the advancement of the playing of the flute or the banging of the brass gong; but it is another thing to want to boost members to rehearse and practise these arts. It is invidious for the Registrar of Societies to have to pick out any particular association for special scrutiny, and to require that association to furnish more detailed particulars to ensure that, in fact, the association is observing the aims and objects with which it has been formed and is complying with the rules and regulations of its constitution. If we are to go through the rigmarole of scrutinising all the 1,007 exempted societies, and if we are to do it as thoroughly as it is required under the law and can be enforced by the law, then very shortly the Minister for Home Affairs will have to ask for a supplementary vote in order to increase the number of clerks - receiving clerks and filing clerks - votes for cabinets, card index system and so on. But if we approach this in a relatively practical way and put them all through the ordinary mill, then only those which we have reasons to believe are not complying with the lawful objects with which they have been formed are more easily brought under scrutiny and brought to book.

The Member for Farrer Park has listed three categories - those registrable under various other Ordinances like the Companies Ordinance; those that will be registered or exempted; and those not registrable at all. As for the first category, I would like to anticipate the Minister for Labour and Law in saying that he is preparing legislation to bring the benevolent associations, which form a very fruitful field for all kinds of minor social swindles - mutual aid associations, medical aid associations - under Government control. They will shortly come under very special legislation which will stop the racketeering that takes place in them. Therefore, quite a number of societies now on the exempted list will be moved into that list where special registration is required.

I have explained the distinction between exempted and registered societies, and why we have felt that, in view of the changed circumstances in which we have to deal with them, it is more practical to deal with them all on one basis, as registered societies. There is left only this very small and selected group called Freemasons and political societies which are completely outside the orbit of the Societies Ordinance. We know of no coherent reason why the Freemasons should have been singled out for special treatment, other than the fact that perhaps those who legislated in those days belonged to the Freemasons. We also see no reason why political societies should be discriminated by having them classified - as the Minister for Home Affairs has just indicated to the House - into three groups: those registered like the Katong Rural Dwellers Association (surely, the Registrar considers them a very dangerous group of people), those that are exempted, like the P.A.P. against whom the Registrar could from time to time elicit more information, and those taken out of the pale of the Registrar, like the S.P.A.

Mr Speaker, Sir, unless the Member for Farrer Park can make out a compelling case and bring to our attention considerations which we had overlooked in the preparation of this Bill, we: intend to go through with it today. If, subsequently, in administering it there are found to be lacunae in the law, then we are quite prepared to reopen for consideration those provisions which have been found to be inadequate. But let us not forget this. First, we have to put the law into coherent and proper form. Then we have to remove discriminatory practices under the law. But above all, it is in the administration of that law that finally decides whether we will have a free and flexible society where freedom of association is one of the hallmarks of a free and tolerant society, or whether we will have a dictatorial and intolerant system. I think Members in this House will agree with me that in the present context of events there is a need to ensure that associations are formed only for lawful purposes, or if they are not beneficial, at least ensure that they are not detrimental to the State. The ingenuity of man being what it is, it is not unknown for societies to have been formed with the most laudable of objectives, whilst, in practice, they are blinds for disreputable and sometimes positively dangerous conspiracies. I would like to add that Members opposite are in no danger of being classified under the category of persons taking part in dangerous conspiracies, because we do not attribute them with sufficient capacity to carry out their evil intent. But I can assure them that before they are classified in the category of being detrimental to the welfare of the State, there will have to be much more buffoonery and stupidities than what they have enacted in the last seven months. In fact, if from time to time they disintegrate - they started with five members, now they have got four - there is no need for special legislation to look after them. We leave them alone and, by processes of nature, they disintegrate by themselves.

3.45 p.m.

Mr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we welcome the assurance given by the Home Minister that there is nothing suspicious or sinister in the Societies (Amendment) Bill. We also welcome the statement that the Bill is aimed at secret societies, gangsters and gambling groups trying to take protection under innocent looking societies. Unfortunately, Sir, this Bill has aroused a great deal of public comment and apprehension. In some political quarters, not in this House, there have been expressions of opinion to the effect that a Bill like this would lead to the killing of democracy and the extermination of a political Opposition. Sir, the Hon. Prime Minister did imply, however, that the moment the Opposition should become dangerous, then he would reconsider the whole position. I hope that is only a joke. We believe however, Sir, that in a democracy, the pendulum must be allowed to swing now one way, now the other. The pendulum must never be static and the pendulum can only be static if we have a one-party Government.

Mr Byrne: It will probably stop.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Because of that, Sir, and because the powers given by this amending Bill are so vast there may come a situation where, regardless of the honest intentions stated, those powers can be wrongly used. Therefore, because of that, there is this apprehension in the public mind. For that reason, Sir, we believe that this Bill is even more important and more controversial than the Pawnbrokers (Amendment) Bill. To reassure the public, therefore, this Bill should go to a Select Committee. Of course, Sir, the Government side has the power to bulldoze it through today. But we hope, as in the case of the Pawnbrokers (Amendment) Bill and the Muslims (Amendment) Bill, that they will agree to refer this Bill to a Select Committee.

Sir, regarding the abolition of exempted societies, the plea is made that this is done to tidy up things and to avoid discrimination. Sir, you will remember that in the case of levying of income tax, there are different categories, because it is practical to have different categories. We have those persons who pay no income tax at all. We have those who pay lower rates and those who pay higher rates. Then we have those who are ex- empted from payment of income tax. So we see no reason why there should not be this different classification of societies for the sake of a more practical administration. For instance, if we say that, in the interests of equality and non-discrimination, visitors in the gallery should all sit here or they should all come in by the same entrance, it might be more difficult for the attendants to distinguish one from another. But we allow these things to be different because, from practical experience, we find that they are expedient and useful.

Sir, under some of the amendments, it will be very difficult and discouraging for people with good intentions to want to organise societies. Some of them will get frightened. Supposing before the societies are registered, it is known that these people have made a statement in the Press that they are forming a society, could they not be regarded under this Bill as having conducted themselves illegally and be regarded as members of an unlawful society? Supposing pioneers in education were to come to Singapore intending to start a school, and that project is publicised, if their headquarters were in a foreign country, then under this Bill they would be regarded as members of an unlawful society. If this were so, then the cause of education in Singapore would have been held back by decades.

Sir, the early pioneers of the different churches first came here to explore the ground to see if they could get support. It was only when they had got support that they established their schools and their missions here. Now I hope the Home Minister will clarify the situation so that it will not prevent philanthropic and charitable people from being able to come here from abroad to establish charitable and educational institutions.

Then, Sir, under the provisions here, if by mistake or through some oversight, the honorary secretary of a society forgets to inform the Registrar that the society has moved its premises, there will be trouble, because that society will then be an unlawful society. When it comes to political societies, Sir, naturally there is the fear that the moment the Opposition threatens to disturb the balance of power, as it were, then, for political reasons, the Government may decide that a certain political party should not be in existence. We do not believe, however, that they will do it to those of us who are here. But there are those outside who feel that that might be done to them. The public therefore, Sir, being fair minded, have expressed their fear. So if there is a Select Committee appointed to consider this Bill, then it could receive the views of those who have such fears and ensure that there will be safeguards in the Bill.

Then, Sir, it could also be interpreted that some of the provisions of this Bill will go against certain Articles in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 13 says:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."

Under the provisions here, the Registrar has the right not to allow a society to change its address.

Article 18 says:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The right includes freedom to change his religion of belief and freedom either alone or in community with others and in public or private to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

And Article 20 reads:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association."

So long as people are not disloyal to this country or engaged in criminal pursuits, I believe they should be encouraged to organise themselves into societies that would benefit the Singapore community. But too many restrictions and the threat of severe penalties will discourage good citizens from organising themselves. I do suggest, therefore, Sir, that in addition to saying that they do not have any sinister or evil intentions, but to show the people that they do not have such intentions, the Government consider it right to have a Select Committee appointed to consider the Bill.

3.55 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ali: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say that, on the whole, I am not of the opinion that this Societies (Amendment) Bill is not of benefit to the people. But, Mr Speaker, as has been suggested by other Members of the Opposition when recommending that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee for the purpose of receiving opinions and view-points, I know what the public feel. I myself do not like societies which are communal in outlook, as in fact they are more dangerous than those which have a provincial outlook. Mr Speaker, there may be associations or political parties which have already been registered, as I have heard just now, based on religion; and there may be organisations which have been registered, organisations which, in my opinion, are provincial in outlook and which are more dangerous than associations which are religious in outlook. So, Mr Speaker, we can say it would be wise if the suggestion already put forward could be accepted by the Government, that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Although the final decision rests with the Government, we, on our part, do not hesitate to recommend reference of the Bill to a Select Committee.

As has been emphasised just now by the Government, we know that although U.M.N.O. particularly has been exempted from registration as it has been declared a political party, nevertheless, in accordance with the new rules, we must apply for registration within a period of one year. Whether U.M.N.O. will be accepted as a political party or otherwise, it will be left to the persons concerned. However, I believe our request will be agreed to. As a political body, we have no intention of upsetting the peace or the progress of the State. We feel confident that we can, in conjunction with the present Government, work towards resolving many major issues of administration or of the constitution, or of any other relevant matters which we may come up against in the future. Therefore, it is only wise that opportunities must be given for views to be aired, and to investigate and ascertain which are really the parties appearing under a cloak, so that we should not accuse at random any organisations which have been running their activities not in accordance with the law. In a democratic institution, we must give opportunities to these associations to put up their views and reports to the Select Committee. If the Government agrees with our viewpoints, then I trust that at a later date we will be informed not merely about the abolition of secret societies but also about many matters which I have already mentioned just now - matters concerning the true identities of political parties, or any other associations, as to whether certain cultural associations are truly so, or whether they are in fact practising undesirable culture from within. Such political associations or parties we must abolish, in accordance with the law which we think is fit for our society. So, Mr Speaker, I would like to stress that, on my part and as a representative of U.M.N.O., U.M.N.O. has been declared a political party by the People's Government. We are not unwilling to conduct any activities which will be to ~he benefit, peace and good order of the State, but let opportunities be given not only to the Opposition in this House but also to the public of Singapore who would like to take part in the democratic practice of promulgating the law in the true sense of the word.

4.01 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir we do not object to this Bill at all. In fact, we are at one with the Government in wanting to bring all manner of societies and associations within the scope of a comprehensive Societies Ordinance. The present Ordinance, as has been stated by the Minister for Home Affairs, is an old piece of legislation. It was brought into force, if I remember rightly, to control mainly Triad societies, but certain exemptions were given and certain classes of associations were taken out of the scope of the Societies Ordinance. The Prime Minister has said that he does not feel that it is necessary that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, but that if the Opposition could advance cogent reasons, he would be prepared to consider and might agree to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

Sir, this proposed legislation is of so important a character that all points of view must be considered. While I did say earlier, and I say it again, that it is desirable that all kinds of associations and societies should be brought under limited control, so long as the freedom of association is not jeopardised, one must not overlook the fact that this proposed legislation intends to bring in all the categories of associations which have so far enjoyed exemption, as well as those societies which do not come under the operation of this Ordinance. Therefore, it is inevitable that such societies should feel considerably concerned that their activities are now going to be curtailed. As a result of the proposed amendment, they are going through the Bill with a view to informing the Government if there are certain points that require deep and serious consideration. There is one which comes to my mind on the question of political parties. Sir, under clause 4, exempted societies are given one year's time in which to make application for registration under this proposed amendment. But in the case of political associations which have been declared by the Governor-in-Council as political associations, no time has been given for them to make application for registration. So with the coming into force of, this Bill, such political parties will be non-existent unless they apply and get registered on the same day. I do not think that can be done so quickly.

Another point is the question of meeting places of registered societies. As the Government knows very well, political parties generally hold meetings not only in their registered premises but in almost every little spot in Singapore.

Mr Byrne: Even in bank vaults.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Does it mean that if such meetings are held in places other than their registered premises, such a political association will become art unlawful society? There are various other points which I need not go into in detail here.

I was listening quite attentively to the Prime Minister and I did agree with him when he said that it is important that all kinds of associations should be brought under one control. I was with him up to that point, and as he was going to resume his seat, I thought of getting up straightway and supporting the Government and saying that it was a good thing and should be done. But on second thoughts he felt that it was necessary to run down the Opposition - that is most typical of the Prime Minister - that we are a spent force, we are this, we are that. Sir, we are not worried what the Government thinks of us. We know what the public thinks of us [Laughter], and we also know what the public thinks of them. We can travel quite freely and go into coffee shops and into markets with the masses. Sir, we do not claim that we are the people's representatives; we do not say that we are the people's government, and yet we dare go among the people without bodyguards everywhere.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, although the Members of the Opposition have not presented their case for committing this Bill to a Select Cornmittee with compelling reasons other than that mentioned by the Member for Cairnhill about the provision of time for political societies to register, however, in order to satisfy the Members of the Opposition, I have no objection to committing this Bill to a Select Committee.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Ong Pang Boon: But for the information of the Member for Cairnhill, it is, in fact, my intention during the Committee stage to move an amendment to the amendment proposed by the Member for Farrer Park to allow the same period of grace for political societies to register under this Bill. As mentioned earlier in my speech, there is no intention to wipe out the Opposition parties.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven other Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.- [Tun Lim Yew Hock].