SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL

6.13 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Social Affairs (Inche Othman Bin Wok): Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The purpose of the Bill is quite straightforward, namely, to tighten the provisions of the Societies Ordinance in order to provide a more effective measure of control. It has been found in the light of some years' experience in administering the Societies Ordinance that the provisions have not proved adequate in dealing with societies already registered or applying for registration. For example, there is a large number of societies which were registered many years ago but whose rules have been found to be defective or inadequate for the proper running of the society, with the result that some of these societies have been either improperly run or used for purposes other than those fur which they were originally registered. Under the present provisions of the Ordinance, there is no power for the Registrar to require a society to change its rules once it has been registered under the Ordinance and accordingly clause 4 of the Bill amends section 17 of the Ordinance to enable the Registrar to require, where circumstances warrant it, any registered society to amend its rules. Where a society has been requested by the Registrar to amend its rules and has failed, without reasonable cause, to do so within three months of the request, the Minister may, where he thinks fit, order that such society should be dissolved. This is the only change proposed to the provisions of section 17 of the Ordinance.

Under the present provisions, the Ministry already has powers to order the dissolution of any society which is being used for unlawful purposes, or is being used for purposes incompatible with the peace or good order of the State or with the objects or rules of the society. It has also been found that many societies are being mismanaged by persons who are not fit to be office-bearers. For example, persons who while being members of a society have been convicted for an offence involving the unlawful expenditure of the funds of a society or have been convicted for a criminal offence. Clause 3 of the Bill is designed to exclude such persons from acting as office-bearers of any society in cases where the circumstances warrant such exclusion.

Clause 3 of the Bill also amends the Ordinance to provide that no registered society shall use any symbol without the consent in writing of the Registrar or an Assistant Registrar. It has been found that a number of societies and associations have adopted symbols which hear resemblance to one another and which have in the past led to no small measure of confusion. It is considered desirable to rectify the situation by providing the Registrar or Assistant Registrar with powers to ensure that a symbol adopted by a registered society is such that its identity is not likely to be confused with that of another society or association. When these amended provisions become law, the Government will, of course, allow a sufficient period for all registered societies with symbols to apply for approval of their symbols, and will only take action against societies which have not complied with the amended provisions after all registered societies have been given an adequate opportunity to do so.

Under the present provisions of section 20 of the Societies Ordinance, where a society has been dissolved by the Minister under section 17 of the Ordinance, the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy or any other officer appointed for the purpose shall, after satisfying and providing for all the debts and liabilities of a society and the cost of winding up, divide the surplus assets, if any, amongst the members of the society according to their rules; and in cases where such division of the surplus assets is not practicable, according to a scheme which has to be prepared by the Official Assignee or other officer appointed for the purpose and submitted to a Supreme Court Judge for approval. It has been found, however, that the provisions relating to the preparation of a scheme for division of surplus assets and the submission to a Supreme Court Judge for approval have, quite apart from the cumbersome procedure involved, not worked out satisfactorily in practice. It is proposed, therefore, that in cases where the division of surplus assets of a dissolved society is not practicable - for example, in the case where the assets concerned are too unsubstantial to warrant the work involved in distribution - such assets should, where the Minister considers it desirable, be paid into the Consolidated Fund of the State.

Clause 2 of the Bill amending subsection (2) of section 9 of the Ordinance to increase the penalty from $25 to $200 hardly needs any comment. It is quite clear that the penalty of $25 which was fixed many years ago is inadequate to serve as a deterrent and it is considered desirable to increase this penalty to the more appropriate sum of $200.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we are now debating the Societies (Amendment) Bill. The debate on this Bill is similar in nature to the debate that we had on the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. This Bill gravely infringes the rights of certain organisations. We pointed out yesterday that Government is utilising its majority strength in this House and abusing its majority seats in this House to amend all the Ordinances. These amendments will enable them to deal with certain individuals, organisations, political Parties or certain trade unions.

After studying the clauses in this Bill, we find that these amendments are of a serious nature. These amendments in the Societies Ordinance can control and influence all registered societies. They can also control any political Party.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that the political system in Singapore is based on the so-called democratic parliamentary system. Political Parties play a very important role in a democratic system. They are part and parcel of the democratic system. After this Societies (Amendment) Bill has been passed, it will be possible for the P.A.P. to deal with any political Party if they feel that this particular political Party will endanger the P.A.P.'s existence.

Now let us study closely the clauses in this Bill. Let us examine them. In clause 3, new section 9B, subsection (1) provides that two types of people are not allowed to hold office in any organisation or political Party. The first category is as provided under (a) . That is, any person who has "been convicted for an offence involving the unlawful expenditure of the funds of a society; or (b) he has been declared, in writing, by the Minister to be unfit to be an officer of a society by reason of any conviction for a criminal offence other than specified in paragraph (a) of this subsection, unless the written permission of the Minister so to act is first obtained." These two small paragraphs infringe human rights. These two small sections will stigmatise a person if he has committed any offence. They will prohibit him from holding any office in any societies forever. He will be stigmatised forever. He will be branded as one who has committed an offence. Such provisions are very objectionable. They are unreasonable. I do not know why the P.A.P. want to make such legislation after they came to power. They have helped criminals who have been convicted in the past by releasing them from gaol and finding jobs for them. But why should they punish a person for his past misdeeds by prohibiting him from holding office in the society? The offences may not be the same. They may he committed under different circumstances and at different times. For example, if a person commits a certain offence during a strike; for example, he prevents the car of his employer from leaving the factory, he will commit the offence of traffic obstruction. If he is convicted by the Court, he will be penalised. He will be deprived of the right to hold office in any society or any political Party. Under a pro-Labour government this person will be declared innocent. But under a pro-employer government, this person will be convicted for having obstructed his employer. Therefore, he will he deprived of his opportunity and right to hold office. This is very wrong. If the P.A.P. find that certain officials in a political Party are very capable and they are a threat to the P.A.P., then the P.A.P. can conveniently dub them as criminals and thus deprive them of their right to work in a political Party. This is another instance to show that the P.A.P. want to interfere with the internal affairs of a political Party or society. The Bill gives too much power to the Minister to enable him to interfere with those societies and political Parties which one day may come to power. It gives the Minister power to stop another political Party from being returned to power by depriving the officers of that political Party of their right to hold office. The P.A.P. also intend to get rid of those union officials who do not support them. It is easy to convict such officials of any offence if the P.A.P. do not like them on some excuse or pretext.

On the second page of this Bill clause 3 - new section 9C reads:

`No registered society shall use any symbol without the consent in writing of the Registrar or an Assistant Registrar.'

That is, a society cannot make use of any symbol without the consent of the Registrar. This provision is also unreasonable. For example, if there is an election pending and a certain group of people form themselves into a political Parts in order to take part in the election, they must have a Party symbol to enable the people to know what party they belong to. But the Registrar can abuse his power by withholding his consent to prevent the people from knowing the symbol of this political Party. This will greatly affect the chances of this political Party in the election. If the electors do not know the symbol of a political Party, how are they going to elect their candidates? This is a serious interference with the activities of a political Party. At the same time - new section 9c (3) - clause 3 reads:

`In any case where a registered society uses a symbol in contravention of the provisions of subsection (1) of this section-

(a) the president, secretary and all members of the committee of such society, or if such offices do not exist, all persons holding positions in such society analogous to those of president, secretary and members of such committee; and

(b) all persons managing or assisting in the management of such society,

shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both such fine and imprisonment.'

This is an extreme penalty. It is unreasonable to penalise all the office-bearers of a society that contravenes this particular provision. This is something like the method used by Hitler or General Templer who detained a whole village because of disturbances caused by one or two persons.

Mr Speaker, every provision in this Bill encroaches on the basic human rights of the people and the principle of the rule of law. On the second page, clause 4 - new subsection (1) of section 17 reads:

`Whenever it appears to the Minister that-

(a) any registered society is being used for unlawful purposes; or

(b) any registered society is being used for purposes incompatible with the peace or good order of the State of Singapore, or with the objects or, rules of the society as entered in the Register of Societies;

the Minister may order that such society shall be dissolved.'

What we want to know is what is an unlawful society? What is meant by unlawful purposes? The P.A.P. can turn bad things into good things and vice versa. They can construe bad things as good and vice versa. After the passage of this Bill they can deal with any society or political Party by alleging that they are illegal or unlawful. The word "unlawful" is very vague and equivocal. The Minister can make use of this equivocal term to brand a certain political Party as being unlawful or indulging in unlawful activities. And then the words "peace or good order" - what is "peace", what is "good order"? They can interpret according to their own ways. These are abstract terms. Different people can have different interpretations of the words "peace and good order". Therefore, it is dangerous to put in such a provision. And then on page 3 of the Bill - new section 17 (1) (c) reads:

`Whenever it appears to the Minister that-

(c) the rules of any registered society are or have been inadequate for the purpose of providing for its proper management and control and such registered society has failed without reasonable cause to amend its rules within three months of, and in accordance with, a request from the Registrar to amend its rules for such purpose,

the Minister may order that such society shall be dissolved.'

The P.A.P. have not adhered to the law whenever they do anything. The inclusion of such a provision in the Bill is very dangerous. I would like to make an analogy to show how this Bill can infringe upon the rights of a society. If such a Bill is to be passed, you can say, "Your nose should be removed to the back of your head." Now if that person refuses to obey, then the Minister will take action against him. It would be something like that. If this kind of Bill is passed, then in future the P.A.P. Minister can also order a man to put on a cheongsam. If the constitutional rules of a society are inadequate, then the members concerned can amend or change them provided they do not go beyond the law. Then why should there be such a provision for the Minister to order them to do so? Mr Speaker, numerous laws have been introduced and passed by the P.A.P. for their own benefit, but the consequences will be very bad and parliamentary democracy may in the end become a laughing stock and perhaps there may emerge in Singapore a Fascist political system. This is a possibility. This can be brought about by their way of legislation.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, whenever the P.A.P. Government introduces a Bill, it is branded as dictatorial, anti-people and Fascist. How can they say so? If there are laws which provide certain powers, of course, the Minister can use those powers. How can you say that the Minister is abusing the powers provided by the law? If there are laws, you cannot say that the action taken under such laws is an abuse of power. What can the Barisan Members do? They can only level terms like "Fascist", "abusing power", etc. This Bill, in actual fact, gives power to the Minister and the Registrar to control societies, to safeguard their members arid to take action against those societies and office-bearers involved in unlawful acts. And yet the Barisan brand this Bill as a Fascist Bill. In the Bill it is provided that only when office-bearers of a society commit unlawful acts, will they be dealt with by the law. All those law-abiding office-bearers and members have nothing to fear. If any member of a society carries out subversive activities detrimental to the security of the State, such as abetting Indonesia in her confrontation, then such activities are unlawful. Any one collaborating with Indonesia at a time when Indonesia is suppressing and persecuting Malaysians and seizing Malaysian properties is deemed to have committed an illegal and unlawful act under this Bill. Of course, it is the responsibility of the Government to enforce laws to ensure that such activities can be curbed in order to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests and welfare of the people.

The Barisan Assemblymen have been using terms like "Fascist", "dictatorial". This attack is futile because our laws provide for the interests of the majority, and not for the minority.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of this Societies (Amendment) Bill is to regulate and suppress societies in Singapore and political Parties. The speech of the Member who sat down just now gave us a clear indication of the intention of the Government. Whoever is against the Government is committing an unlawful act, and therefore the provisions of this Societies (Amendment) Bill must be applied.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that this Bill is unnecessary. It is undemocratic. First of all, the new section 9c enables the Government to regulate symbols of all societies and political Parties. In the case of non-political societies, symbols are not so important. But in the case of political Parties, a symbol is very important because during polling the voter only votes for the symbol. We have experience of the Government asking that party symbols be changed. So section 9c enables the Government to refuse party symbols which have been known for some time. There is no proviso to assure political Parties that symbols which have been in use will automatically be approved, and any party has to accept the decision of the Registrar and the Minister, without any opportunity of appealing to the Court. Under this new section, if the Minister says that this party must change its symbol, it has no right of appeal to anybody; the decision of the Minister shall be final.

Another undemocratic aspect of the Bill is that the Government may ask any society to change its rules that have already been approved by them. Mr Speaker, we know that when rules are submitted to Government for approval, the Government normally take some time to consider them, and in almost all cases questions are asked on the rules and amendments suggested. And now we have a new clause enabling Government to repeal or amend rules that have already been approved by Government. Let us suppose the constitution of a party or a society has been approved by Government. Now the Government want power to amend or repeal those rules,

Mr Speaker, Sir, this power is very undemocratic. The Government already have enormous powers to take action against societies that come under section 17 of the Societies Ordinance. Clause 4, amending section 17, says:

(1) Whenever it appears to the Minister that -

(a) any registered society is being used for unlawful purposes; or

(b) any registered society is being used for purposes incompatible with the peace or good order of the State of Singapore, or with the objects or rules of the society as entered in the Register of Societies; or'.

Mr Speaker, this clause gives the Government almost full dictatorial powers to close down any society. And the Government in addition want not only to have powers to close down a society, but also to manage, regulate and control a society by a new provision, which is the new clause amending section 17 of the Ordinance.

The third undemocratic feature of this Bill is clause 5 which enables the Minister to expropriate the funds of members once he closes down a society. Mr Speaker, the funds of a society belong to its members, and even if the Government close down a society they have no right to expropriate the funds.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that this Bill is most undemocratic, and that it, together with the next few Bills to be brought up - one of which is the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Amendment) Bill - is meant, in my opinion, to strangle the Opposition.

Inche Rahamat Bin Kenap: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say a few words on this Bill. I would like to ask the Opposition why they are scared of this amendment Bill. If the Bill is passed, they will not be able to manipulate societies for their own political ends. It is the practice of the Communists to manipulate the societies for their nefarious designs. Likewise, the Communists carry out their struggle by using the societies as their tools.

I would like to say to them that as long as they carry out such designs detrimental to the interests of the people, then they will suffer the consequences of their actions. So in this House they should not pretend to believe that this Bill is undemocratic. If we are undemocratic, surely the opposition Members would not be here in this House. This is unlike the democracy that is obtaining in Indonesia.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in respect of this Bill, I feel that the difference between the Government's stand and the Opposition's stand is this. We, as the Government, have the right to look after the legitimate rights of societies and their members. But the Opposition Members here are asking us to give latitude to those unlawful members and office-bearers of societies to carry out their unlawful activities.

Now, here is the distinction. The Members opposite have asked us: what does "unlawful" mean? I will try to enlighten them as to what the term "unlawful" means. This is a very glaring example. If a society is used to carry out treacherous activities detrimental to the security of the State, then we say that such actions are unlawful. Another example of an unlawful act is this: the funds of a trade union without the approval of its members are being doled out after a meeting of only some of the executive members to fellow travellers. Another example is when the society is being used for purposes other than in the interests or in keeping with the rules of the society.

In Singapore there are a great many varieties of societies, some with aims and objectives which are not in actual fact directed at the interests and welfare of the members, but for the purpose of making money. So I do not understand why the Barisan Assembly Members, on whatever piece of legislation we introduce, should always support unlawful actions and always speak on behalf of such actions. They say that we have denied the societies the right to appeal to the Court, because the Minister's decision is final according to the Bill. But when there are provisions for them to appeal to the Court, they will say that the Court may not be a good means to meet this situation. They are very eloquent in their specious arguments. They are trying to obstruct the passage of whatever legislation we want to introduce into this House. [Interruption]

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): Ah, he has said too much. You know, all this is bunkum. The P.A.P. is renowned for its integrity and honesty. We are not boasting. Only a handful of Assemblymen opposite us are telling us that they represent the broad masses of the people of Singapore! How can they claim this?

Mr Speaker: Has the Parliamentary Secretary anything further to say on this?

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): Yes, I am winding up.

Mr Speaker: I do not want to appear impatient, but let us not have a discussion as to who represents the people. We are on the Societies (Amendment) Bill.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): Sir, I am talking about the symbols used by societies. The Member for Hong Lim expressed his dissatisfaction in regard to the symbol of his political Party. He realised that it was similar to that used by Nanyang University and the People's Association; it is even used as a trade mark. The Barisan Members have been shouting day in and day out that this is illegal, that is no good and that they are the representatives of the people. All this is sheer nonsense. [Interruption] They accuse us of being dictators. If we are dictators, these people will no longer be sitting here today.

The Minister for Education (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will not take up much of your time. I just wish to clarify a few points. I do not think it will take up more than ten minutes.

The Member for Thomson has accused the Government of intending to use this amending Bill to deal with opposition Parties or societies that are in opposition to the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have no intention of abusing our power. In fact, the whole purpose of this amendment is to protect the ordinary members - the lawful members - of the society. For the Member to accuse us of abusing our power, I think, is a bit of distortion. In fact, it is people like the Member for Thomson who have been abusing the power. Take, for instance, the O.B.A.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not want the Minister to make any personal attacks on the Member.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, take, for instance, the old boys' association. The object of an old boys' association is to promote friendship amongst the old boys of the school in whatever way they can and to promote the welfare of its members. That is the object of most of the old boys' associations. But what do we find? We have discovered from experience that the O.B.A. has been used for political purposes. In fact, most of the O.B.A.s in Singapore have become the political wings of the Barisan Sosialis. During the referendum campaign the O.B.A.s played a prominent part. They canvassed among the people against the Government. Even at the last election the O.B.A.s came out actively to campaign on behalf of the Barisan.

Mr Koo Young: They do not support the P.A.P.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: The O.B.A. is not a political organisation. If it is a political organisation, of course, such an association is at liberty to campaign at the election. But it is not a political organisation. It is the same thing with the Hawkers' Union. The object of the Hawkers' Union is supposed to look after the welfare of its members. But instead we find the Hawkers' Union running around Singapore and taking an active part in the anti-merger, anti-Malaysia campaign, and campaigning for the Barisan. These are the people who abuse the objects of the society. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, just now both the Member for Thomson and the Member for Hong Lim spoke of the clause about the symbol. We have found from experience that many of the societies, not necessarily political societies, have used symbols which some other societies have already adopted, with the result that confusion has arisen. This is particularly important when election time comes. And it is to prevent this confusion that we have introduced the amendment. Take, for instance, the symbol of the U.P.P. It has been pointed out that it is a symbol that has been used by many associations. Take, for instance, the Barisan symbol - the circle and the star. I wish to inform the House, if the Members opposite are still unaware of it, that this very identical symbol is used by a Communist organisation in China. That identical symbol of the Barisan Sosialis is reproduced in a dictionary published by the Government Publishing House in China. I would advise the Members of the Barisan Sosialis to be very careful about it. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. Inche Othman.

Inche Othman Bin Wok: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to prolong the debate. All that has been raised by Members of the Opposition has been answered by my colleagues. I would only like to say here that the purpose of our bringing up this amending Bill is not to curb political Parties. Our main purpose is to protect members of societies, whether ordinary societies or political societies, from being manipulated by irresponsible people, thereby bringing about undesirable results to them. The reasons have been given by me just now, and so I do not wish to elaborate on this.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Koo Young: Division.

The House divided: Ayes, 26; Noes, 8; Absent, 15; Abstention, 1. Ayes Noes A. Rahim Ishak Chia Thye Poh Buang bin Omar Junid Chio Cheng Thun Chan Chee Seng Koo Young Chow Chiok Hock Kow Kee Seng Fong Sip Chee Ong Eng Guan Gonzales, R. A. Ong Lian Teng Govindasamy, P. Poh Ber Liak Ho Cheng Choon Tan Cheng Tong Ho See Beng Jek Yeun Thong Abstention Lee Teck Him Barker, E. W. Lim Kim San Mahmud Awang Absent Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi Bani, S. T. Ng Kah Ting Chan Choy Siong, Madam Ng Yeow Chong Chan Sun Wing Ong Pang Boon Fong Kim Heng Othman bin Wok Goh Keng Swee Rahamat bin Kenap Lee Kuan Yew Rajoo, S. Lim Cheng Lock Bernard Rodrigues Lim Huan Boon Sia Kah Hui Lingam, S. V. Sim Boon Woo Loh Miaw Gong, Miss Teong Eng Siong Nair, Mrs. Devan Toh Chin Chye Rajaratnam, S. Wee Toon Boon Wong Soon Fong Yaacob bin Mohamed Al-Haj Yong Nyuk Lin

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Inche Othman bin Wok]

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.