MUTUAL BENEFIT ORGANISATIONS BILL (As reported from Select Committee)

Order for Third Reading read.

3.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Notices have been given by the Member for Tanglin that he wishes to propose amendments to clauses 2 and 45 of the Bill and by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour and Law that he wishes to propose an amendment to clause 47. The Bill accordingly stands re-committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly in respect of clauses 2, 45 and 47 thereof.

Any other Member who wishes to propose other amendments or new clauses or schedules may now give notice of his desire.

No other Member giving notice -

Mr Speaker: Committee Stage, what day?

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Now, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Notices of amendments have been given. The Assembly will, therefore, immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

3.51 p.m.

Clause 2-

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page A1, line 17 to line 1 in page A2, to leave out "either as the principal object or as an ancillary object" and insert "as the sole or principal object".

Sir, I am sure it is not the intention of the Government that this legislation should cause inconvenience to more people than is necessary. Sir, the definition of "mutual benefit organisation" is so wide in its scope that many organisations which should not be registered will have to apply for registration or be declared illegal. The purpose of my amendment, Sir, is to limit the scope so that those which should not register need not register. Sir, the definition, as it stands, makes no difference between mutual benefit organisations which have that aim as its principal or main object, and those whose main object is something else but which have, as a subordinate or ancillary function, the giving of some mutual benefit. Sir, in page A2, clause 2 (c) opens the door very wide indeed. It reads:

"the relief or maintenance of the members or subscribers when unemployed or when in distressed circumstances;".

Sir, if the staff of a business firm feel that they want to help the widow and the fatherless children of a colleague of theirs who has died, and they pass the hat round, I believe they may immediately be regarded as coming under this provision, because they are providing relief or maintenance of the members or subscribers when unemployed or when in distressed circumstances. Supposing in a school the teachers subscribed money to aid members of their staff and the boys subscribed money to aid the members of their class, would that come under this provision? Supposing in the case of a religious organisation, where they have a small section to aid the poor members, would they then have to register twice? I believe they have to. In the case of other religious organisations like the Buddhist temples, if they have a small section devoted to helping their members, I believe they will come under this provision.

Sir, the purpose stated by the Government in introducing this Bill is that a good many persons have taken advantage of mutual benefit organisations to get up their own spurious organisations in order to swindle the public. We agree with that purpose. It is a very desirable object. But surely in order to achieve that objective, it could be so done that not too much inconvenience and not too many difficulties are caused to honest and charitable people who would then be discouraged by the requirements of having to revise their rules, to invest funds in certain trustee securities and postal savings bank, where they draw less interest than elsewhere, having to employ an auditor and having to employ a book-keeper to draw up a statement of accounts every year. Surely some of these could be excluded by limiting the definition to such organisations as have mutual benefit as their sole or principal object, and not as an ancillary object.

Supposing, Sir, they all apply, they fill in the forms and they write to the Registrar of Societies. We wonder whether the Registrar or his assistant will have the time to study all these documents. Very likely after all the trouble taken by so many people, the documents will just pile up and the Registrar will wait for complaints before he goes into an investigation of the various societies. If that is the case, why not wait until the complaints come and, in the meantime, make the gate narrower so that those, which apply, are in such numbers that the documents can be handled by the staff of the Registrar of Societies. Otherwise, it is imposing unnecessary difficulties, like the old-fashioned method where the teacher says to a boy, "All right, write a thousand lines", when we know very well that the teacher will not go through the thousand lines.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, it looks very much as if the Member for Tanglin is even more confused than the Member for Mountbatten on the matter of mutual aid organisations. Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of this Bill is to bring under control organisations, which receive subscriptions or donations from their members in return for future benefits. That is the purpose of this Bill. It will never cover those cases, which he has just imagined; say, somebody suddenly gets ill in the Anglo-Chinese School and they pass the hat round. Surely that is not a mutual aid organisation. If you will look at the definition of "subscription" - these associations always collect subscriptions - you will see what the word means:

'"subscription" means a subscription paid by a member or subscriber to a mutual benefit organisation'-

that is, the payment of the subscriptions must be to a mutual aid organisation.

So there must be an organisation. It must have members in it. They must pay subscriptions or make donations. That is the sort of thing that we have in mind.

4.00 p.m.

There is need of a definition for mutual aid. Everyone must know exactly what it is. There are many organisations, which say they have principal objects, which do not concern mutual aid activities, but have nevertheless ancillary activities, which cover mutual aid activities. The net must be enlarged to catch all these organisations. If there is to be a definition of a mutual benefit organisation, it must be a comprehensive one. This definition must be looked at also in relation to clause 45. In clause 45, it is provided that contributions made to a life assurance company or co-operative societies or trade unions will be excluded from the operation of this Ordinance. In all other cases where their primary object does not concern mutual benefit activities, they nevertheless must register under the Ordinance; otherwise, there would be no means of introducing an effective control over such organisations.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, my school may be peculiar and although we do not have what is known as a mutual benefit organisation, we have a teachers' society where the members subscribe regularly. If somebody is in need, the members may decide to vote money. Would they come under this?

An hon. Member: It is an illegal society.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Then it becomes illegal. That is the point, Sir. Reference has been made to clause 45. Both of them are related really. I wonder if it will be proper for me to debate on clause 45 as well, Sir?

The Chairman: It might be convenient to touch on that amendment as well, so that when we do come to clause 45, there can just be a formal motion before the House.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, at the Select Committee meetings two ways were suggested by which the number of societies affected could be reduced. One was by narrowing the gate and letting a smaller number come in to register. The other was to make the gate as wide as possible, and when they come in, the Minister would be given the power to exempt as many categories as he thought should be exempted. The categories mentioned as being deserving of exemption were insurance companies and bona tide voluntary charitable and religious organisations. The words "bona fide" were purposely inserted because we all desire that spurious organisations should not be registered. But what did we find, Sir? When the Bill, as amended, came before the Select Committee for adoption, we found that the Government had decided to exempt insurance companies - that is all right - trade unions - we do not mind that - co-operative societies - we do not mind that either - and exclude bona fide voluntary charitable and religious organisations.

Sir, although the Government might not have realised it, the implication is bad. It means that of those bona fide societies which could be exempted, the Government has decided that in addition to insurance companies, only the co-operative societies and the trade unions will be included. What about the others? Does it mean that they are not to be trusted? Does it mean that their standard of honesty is not as high as that of the trade unions and co-operative societies? Surely, we know there are good elements and bad elements in all spheres of life and in all organisations. If we decide to exempt, say, trade unions and co-operative societies, then by all means exempt also bona fide voluntary charitable and religious organisations. If you do not wish to exempt bona fide voluntary charitable and religious organisations, then why exempt trade unions and co-operative societies? I wonder if the Government fully realises the wrong impression that might go around. That this Government does not like religious societies and voluntary and charitable organisations. I therefore ask the Government to reconsider the question. We went further into this and the impression, which the representors and Members of the Opposition got in the Select Committee was that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour and Law was quite convinced, like ourselves, that the suggestion was reasonable. But, of course, he knew that he was not the one to make the final decision. I would like to read to the House from the Report of the Select Committee on the Mutual Benefit Organisations Bill, page C85, questions Nos. 831 and 833:

"Mr Wee Toon Boon

831. Mr Speaker, you have taken some considerable time to point out what actually the representor has in mind. It appears to me that what he has in mind is that those institutions such as medical benefit societies or financial companies or those run on a commercial basis should be registered. Is that Mr Rayner's opinion?".

Mr Rayner's reply was:

"That is so.".

Mr Wee Toon Boon speaking again:

"Mr Speaker, just now Mr Rayner also said that not all religious organisations were bona fide organisations, if we were to accept the proposal that there should be provision for the exemption of certain organisations, would he agree that provision should also be made to check those organisations which had been exempted from registration under the Bill?".

We jump, Sir, to question 833 - you are speaking here, Sir:

"Anyway, the principle which the Parliamentary Secretary has in mind is accepted by you (addressed to Mr Rayner), the principle being that if you are to exempt, there must be power in some way, either in the Bill or some other Ordinance, to look into the affairs of those organisations exempted?" Mr Rayner's reply was:

"I entirely agree, Sir.".

Mr Wee Toon Boon asked:

"Mr Speaker, could the witness suggest what sort of check we could put on the management of exempted institutions?".

You said, Sir:

"That is what Mr Rayner has explained? -In the first place, they will probably be registered under the Societies Ordinance. That is your first check. Should there be a whisper of any abuses, the Registrar of Societies will call them up immediately under his powers, If the Registrar of Societies finds that they are abusing their powers, he will no doubt communicate with the Registrar under this Bill.".

Sir, we ask, as a compromise, a partial and not even complete exemption for bona fide voluntary charitable and religious organisations. Full exemption is being given to trade unions, cooperative societies and insurance companies. For voluntary charitable and religious organisations of the bona fide type, we ask only for a partial exemption. After they have applied for exemption and the Government, after investigation, has considered that certain organisations are bona fide, then these organisations should be exempted. I am sure, Sir, that in order not to give an impression that there is discrimination, this concession could be given.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have given considerable thought to this Bill and we find it necessary to take powers to control all such organisations, whether their primary objects are matters which concern mutual benefit activities or not. That is very essential to a proper scheme of control.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Tanglin has overlooked the provisions of clause 15. If I may invite him now to take a second look at this clause. There it is provided that "a registered organisation shall not be affected by the provisions of the Societies Ordinance, if no activities are carried on by it other than those of a mutual benefit organisation." If it is purely a mutual benefit organisation, then it need only register under this Ordinance. But if such an organisation intends to function as a society as well, then it would be necessary for it to be registered under the Societies Ordinance. At present, the whole position is very confused because mutual aid organisations and societies all appear on the same register. That has facilitated considerable fraud in the setting-up of these organisations. I will refer the Member for Tanglin to clause 46 of this Bill. The distinction is made there between the honest type of mutual aid organisation registered under the Societies Ordinance, and the dishonest type of association, which has hitherto been acting fraudulently. In the case of those associations which run these mutual benefit schemes and which are registered under the Business Names Ordinance, they would be required to register under this Bill within a period of three months. In the case of the reputable type of organisations, which are all registered under the Societies Ordinance, they have a period of one year in which to register. That means to say, if they find that they are, in fact, nothing more or less than mutual aid organisations, then within a year they must register under this Bill. Now, if they are mutual aid organisations and also function as societies, they will have to register themselves under the Societies Ordinance as well as under this Bill. That is what we have tried to do in this Bill. We have excluded life insurance companies, those co-operative societies, which run benefit schemes, as well as those trade unions, which also run mutual benefit schemes, from the provisions of this Bill. Now in the case of the association of teachers, which the Member for Tanglin is very interested in, if it has a mutual benefit scheme, then all that it has to do is to register within one year after this Bill. If it is already registered under the Societies Ordinance, this registration will continue. So there should be no difficulty whatsoever, Sir.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker. Sir, I am sorry if I gave the impression that, I was fighting for those organisations, which have, as their main object, the running of a mutual benefit scheme. I was not. I was pleading, as the representor, Mr Rayner, had pleaded before the Select Committee, for those who are already registrable under the Societies Ordinance and whose activities are not of the mutual benefit society kind to be exempted. For instance, a religious organisation has the worship of God as its main object. Then, as an ancillary object, it has a benevolent section. Now, such an organisation, I believe, must register a second time.

4.15 p.m.

In the case of Chinese temples which operate mutual benefit schemes on a big scale as the principal object, they should be registered. We are not asking that such temples be exempted. But in the case of other organisations where the benevolent section is an ancillary object, they should be put on an equal footing with that of the trade unions and cooperative societies.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amendment moved by the Member for Tanglin.

I understand that the object of the Government is to control undesirable organisations for our own benefit. I believe that the purpose of this Bill is to abolish secret societies, which run illegal benefit schemes for their members. No one can oppose these objects. But I fear, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the extent to which the Government is attempting to control these illegal activities will cause considerable hardship and difficulties to innocent and honest citizens.

From the explanations given by the Minister for Labour and Law in reply to the questions raised by Members of the Opposition, I am not confident that religious organisations will receive exemption from registration. In the past, the majority of these religious organisations were exempted from registration and, as I have said, the object of these organisations is primarily to assist and look after the welfare of the members. The form of the assistance is varied and wide in scope. In difficult circumstances, these organisations come to the aid of their members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if these organisations have to be registered, I am afraid that they will not have the means to do so, unlike other organisations. Some of the members of these mutual benefit organisations are aged people. Some of them go to mosques (surau); they are not active and they are very poor. It is difficult for them to comply with the provisions of the law, as they cannot actively participate in the running of their organisations. It is possible that they may even be afraid of becoming members of such organisations, and this will lead them to believe that they have no freedom to practise their own religion.

For these reasons, the Opposition Members are pressing for the amendment moved and we hope that the Government will look thoroughly into this matter. As the Government has reconsidered its attitude towards the Pawnbrokers (Amendment) Bill, I hope that the Minister for Labour and Law will give special consideration to this amendment in the interest of the welfare of the people of Singapore. Perhaps the Government will put forward an excuse saying that such religious organisations did not put up representations to the Select Committee. In the Report of the Select Committee on the Mutual Benefit Organisations Bill, it appears that the Buddhist temples sent a representative who was completely in the dark about the functions of Buddhist temples. Similarly, the members of other religious organisations who are old people do not know the provisions of the law, and I am afraid that the freedom of the people to engage in religious activities will be restricted. I have no doubt that it is not the intention of the Government to restrict religious activities.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock (River Valley): Mr Speaker, Sir, it was pointed out in the Select Committee by a learned lawyer, Mr L. Rayner, that in his opinion it would be undesirable and dangerous if the definition of "mutual aid organisation" were to be narrowed down. I remember the witness telling us how well versed he was to get round awkward portions of legislation. If the definition were narrowed down, many organisations which would be caught by this Bill would escape registration, and this would defeat the very purpose which this Bill is trying to implement

When this Bill is implemented, certain bona fide voluntary charitable and religious organisations would also be affected. The argument put forward by the Member for Tanglin is that registration of these bona fide voluntary charitable and religious organisations would cause immense difficulties and hardship. We on this side of the House do appreciate the additional work that is required to be done to comply with the provisions of the Bill, but we do not believe that this additional work would discourage these organisations from continuing to do the good work they have been doing. These organisations have gone through more difficult times, and I am sure the additional work would not deter them from continuing to do their good work. After all, it is agreed that this Bill is a good one. There is a need to control and register mutual aid organisations. It is accepted that such bona fide voluntary charitable and religious organisations are very few in number, and they are either registered or exempted societies. If provision is made in this Bill for exemption for this type of organisation, it would also open the door and give opportunity to others not so bona fide organisations to seek exemption. There were about 110 cooperative societies, 150 trade unions, 1,024 exempted and 1,027 registered societies at the end of 1959. There can be no justification in involving the Government in additional expenditure to recruit additional staff for the work when it is accepted that perhaps only a very few would get exemption.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi (Kampong Kembangan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek clarification on this clause from the Hon. the Minister for Labour and Law, because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development - who is of the same religion as mine - is not with us this afternoon. And I hope the other Members will follow what I have to say.

Mr Speaker, we have just approved the Muslims (Amendment) Bill. I would like to support my colleague, the Member for the Southern Islands, on the question of the welfare of mutual benefit organisations which have been registered according to the existing law or those organisations which are to be registered.

4.30 p.m.

So the big problem which I think the Minister for Labour and Law can clarify is the position of the suraus and the mosques, the majority of which are administered by the kampong folks themselves. I would like to ask the Minister for Labour and Law this question: is it the policy that the special privileges of the Malays, which include their religion, will be implemented? If so, they can go further in the matter of the upkeep of the suraus and mosques. Could they be exempted for a certain time to avoid corruption which all of us know?

I agree that we should control their financial affairs, because it is found that there are many people who exploit such organisations. So what I think is important, Mr Speaker, is the position of the suraus and the mosques, the majority of which are being managed and assisted by the kampong folks who themselves are not members of any organisation at all. So this is a big and serious question to me and maybe to my colleagues also, and in order to overcome this will the Minister for Labour and Law put into effect certain rules such as bait-ul-mal in order to upkeep the suraus or mosques? Because this is included in the Muslims (Amendment) Bill which we have discussed, but nothing can be done Singapore because we know that the laws of Singapore are not based on Islamic law and we know that we are prepared to face realities today. Therefore, as to what kind of action will be taken by the Muslim Advisory Board on the problems which I have raised and whether such representations have been brought to the notice of the Minister or not, I do not know, but I think it is most important to uphold one of the religious precepts of Islam.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, some of us can be very grateful to the Almighty that we were never born stupid. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has got nothing to do with suraus and masjids. No surau or masjid will ever be required to register under this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Tanglin was talking about a religious society or a society that is formed to worship God. Well, so be it. Form a society to worship God. But if you collect subscriptions and run a benefit scheme for members of that society, then we require it to be registered under this Bill. That is the right thing to do. One must realise that there has been a lot if fiddling about with such funds, which properly belong to the persons who contribute to these organisations. We are trying to do the right thing for the people of Singapore and to see that these associations are brought under proper control. I referred this House just now to clause 46 of this Bill. We show the distinction there between the fraudulent type of organisation and the honest organisation. The fraudulent type of organisation is able at present to produce a certificate of registration under the Business Names Ordinance to claim that that is its authority to defraud the public. We say to such organisations, "You must register within three months and you must comply with the rules that are laid down in this Ordinance. Otherwise you are an unlawful organisation." There are also fortunately hundreds of the good type of mutual aid organisations. They are really first-class mutual benefit organisations. They have a real history and tradition of their own. Now they would, within one year, have to register under the Mutual Benefit Organisations Ordinance if they have benefit schemes. They will also have to register under other Ordinances if their activities are more than mutual aid. If they are, in fact, societies and are registered as such, they will then continue to be on the register of societies as societies. That is what we are trying to do. We are not harassing religious bodies or trying to put charitable organisations out of business. We are trying to be reasonable. We want to see that there is effective control over the activities of these organisations, and that is why we have introduced this legislation.

This is not something new. The provisions of the Bill are founded on the Friendly Societies enactment in England, which has a long history behind it. We are not trying to introduce new legislation to harass or to make it difficult for the law abiding people of Singapore, or for that matter religious organisations or those who are associated with charitable organisations.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to answer the Member for River Valley first. I think he read only part of Mr Leslie Rayner's statement. May I quote from Question 798? Mr Rayner said:

"It is a good thing to have the definition as wide as possible, leaving the power to exempt with the Registrar, with an appeal to the Minister."

Sir, he made the suggestion. All right, make the definition and then you exempt. Sir, the Government accepted that suggestion apparently, the definition was made wide, and the Government then proceeded to exempt certain categories and to leave out certain categories.

Sir, our point, and that of Mr Leslie Rayner's, was that if the Government agree to exempt, why not exempt the honest type, as the Minister for Labour and Law has said - the type that is doing good work? Why does the Government not also exempt them as it has exempted the trade unions and the cooperatives? I am only asking for the same thing.

The Prime Minister: For the simple reason that trade unions and co-operatives come under special trade union Ordinances and certain co-operative Ordinances. They are already under control. If the Member for Tanglin wants to produce a Bill for the control of his churches and Methodist missions which run the Anglo-Chinese School, by all means. Then we will exempt them from these mutual aid provisions. Have the controls under the Anglo-Chinese School Ordinance then.

The Chairman: The only amendment which has been proposed is to clause 2. But might I remind hon. Members that we are also discussing the amendment to clause 45 which is in the name of the Member for Tanglin? When this discussion ends, there will be no further discussion on the amendment, which is proposed to clause 45.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask whether in the case of religious organisations they are to be registered under the Societies Ordinance? If they are, then they have to register twice if they have a benevolent section.

The Prime Minister: Sir, the point that I made for the benefit of the Member for Tanglin is this: that there are special legislations to control the books and the finances of trade unions and cooperatives. There is no legislation in the Societies Ordinance to control the accounts and the finances of any society. If you will remember, when we made amendments to the Societies Ordinance recently, the Registrar will not even be able to call for certain thing if they happen to belong to political associations. Under the Societies Ordinance, there is no power to look into the books and the accounts. Under the trade union laws and the laws of co-operative societies, there is power to do so. There are no laws at present for the registration, control and scrutiny of the accounts of any religious body or it religious order.

Mr Wee Toon Boon rose -

The Chairman: Probably the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to correct a misunderstanding, and I think I know what the misunderstanding is. Mr Wee.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Mr Speaker Sir, the point raised by the Member for Tanglin has been replied by the Minister and the Prime Minister. I would like to say this about his wrong impression of my attitude in the Select Committee. The Member for Tanglin is so simpleminded that he has overlooked the fact that the main purpose of hearing evidence in the Select Committee is to find out what constructive ideas the witnesses can tender to the Committee. And it is up to the Committee to decide whether to accept their ideas or not.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45-

The Chairman: Will the Member for Tanglin move his amendment formally?

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, I beg to move,

In page A17, line 16, after "1960", to insert ", or to such bona fide voluntary charitable and religious organisations as may be exempted by the Minister after investigation".

Amendment negatived.

Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47-

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page A18, line 18, at end, to add -

Shall I read the amendment*, Sir?

• The amendment reads as follows:

In page A18, line 18, at end, to add-

"(3) All rules made under this section shall be published in the Gazette and shall be presented to the Legislative Assembly as soon as may be after publication and if a resolution is passed pursuant to a motion notice whereof has been given for a sitting day not later than the first available sitting day 01 the Assembly next after the expiry of three months from the date when such rules are so presented annulling the rules or any part thereof as from a specified date, such rules or such part thereof as the case may be shall thereupon become void as from such date but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new rules.".

The Chairman: If the paragraph sets out the terms of the amendment correctly, then the Parliamentary Secretary need not read it.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of the amendment is to give the Assembly the power to approve any regulation that is to be made under this section.

4.45 p.m.

The Chairman: I do not know whether the amendment is correctly reproduced here. It only provides for the annulling of rules, not variation. Is that confirmed? It is a question of annulling, not variation?

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 47, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill

Bill reported, with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.