PEOPLE'S ASSOCIATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 1.58 pm

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has nothing to do with my portfolio as Foreign Minister, but I am moving it as the Deputy Chairman of the People's Association. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The People's Association (PA) was established on 1st July 1960 with the primary objective of promoting racial harmony and social cohesion. The PA Act was enacted on 19th May 1960 and subsequently amended in 1963 and 1965.

This Bill now seeks to amend the PA Act in five areas, namely, the election of corporate members to the Board, the holding of general meetings, the powers of the Board, the adoption of annual report and the deposit of money.

Election of corporate members to the Board

The People's Association Board now has 14 members comprising the Prime Minister as Chairman, nine appointed members and four elected members. Currently, the four elected members are elected from amongst the PA's corporate members at an annual general meeting. They hold office for only one year unless they are re-elected. The proposed amendment to section 6 of the Act will enable the elected members to hold office for three years. This will be consistent with the 3-year term of the appointed members and ensure continuity of the Board.

Holding of general meetings

The PA has 90 corporate members. They comprise organisations from different interests and professional groups. As it is now proposed that elected members hold office for three years, the general meetings for election of members need only take place once every three years. Hence section 8 of the Act is to be amended to provide for this. But PA will continue to organise smaller and separate meetings with the corporate members and conduct joint projects with them and regularly keep in close touch with the corporate members.

Powers of the Board

The present section 10 (2) (f) allows the PA Board to manage or run community centres, youth clubs, boys' clubs and girls' clubs. The amendment will enable the PA Board to manage or run clubs or institutes or such other bodies as the Board thinks fit and this will give the Board a great deal more flexibility.

Adoption of Annual Report

The existing section 12 requires the adoption of the PA's annual report at its annual general meeting. The section has to be amended now since there will be no more AGMs. The Bill also seeks to adopt with some minor modifications the model provision to be incorporated in an Act of Parliament establishing a body corporate recommended by the Attorney-General.

Deposit of money

The existing section 13 (1) only allows the PA and its approved committees to deposit money in banks in the name of the PA. The amendment seeks to allow the PA and its committees to deposit money in approved finance companies other than banks and to invest funds which are not immediately required for use in such securities which trustees may by any written law be authorised to invest trust moneys in.

Sir, all these amendments have been presented to the PA's annual general meeting on 10th July last year and have been approved by the corporate members.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot support the amendments in the People's Association (Amendment) Bill. The People's Association is fully supported by taxpayers. And yet the way it is run and its functions, it appears to be a propaganda arm of the PAP. The People's Association is made to be in charge of community centres which are supposed to be the focal point of all social, cultural, educational and recreational activities of a constituency. But its real purpose is to promote the interests of the ruling political party. That is the reason why all Opposition MPs are shut out from community centres. The reason given is that the Opposition MPs do not support Government policies. But do the PAP MPs themselves support Government policies? I do not think so. The community centres have mounted an intensive campaign to speak Mandarin. But what happens? When it comes to the crunch at the Marine Parade by-election, we see that the PAP MPs flouted Government policies. They strayed away from Government policies and used dialects extensively and that is one of the reasons why they won the by-election. And when it really comes to the bottom line, the PAP MPs do not believe in Government policies when it hurts their own interests. So it cannot be said that the Opposition MPs do not support Government policies and therefore community centres should be handed to them. They must be made advisors to community centres, like all PAP MPs.

In the case of Potong Pasir which I know very well, the People's Association even committed a breach of trust. Residents of Potong Pasir Constituency have contributed generously to build a lovely community centre at Sennett Estate which is part of Potong Pasir Constituency. The people have contributed money on the understanding that the money shall be used to build a community centre for the constituents' use. Yet, when I was elected in Potong Pasir in 1984, the community centre at Sennett Estate was quickly taken away by the PA and used, I believe, as a grassroots secretariat. Its use as a community centre was discontinued. That act was clearly a breach of trust on the part of the PA. Despite our many protestations, nothing has come out of it.

Under clause 4 of the Bill, the PA is to expand its power not only to run youth clubs, boys' clubs and girls' clubs, but institutes and such other bodies as the Board thinks fit. This is like giving a blank cheque to the Board of the PA. I sincerely urge this House not to allow them to do that. The powers given to the Board are too extensive. What exactly are institutes and bodies which the Board has in mind? These institutes and bodies must be clearly spelt out in the Act. Otherwise we do not know what we are approving? I hope the Minister will clarify. What does the Board have in mind? Do they want to form other bodies that will help in the PAP MPs' politicking or what? At the moment, we have got the CCCs, CCMCs, RCs, youth groups, clubs and the lot. Why are they not enough? Why is there a necessity to increase the powers of the Board? Therefore, unless the Minister specifies them, I cannot agree with this amendment.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Bedok GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, actually I did not intend to speak on this Bill. I thought it was straightforward and formalising what has been carefully thought out. But I cannot let the Member of the Opposition go with some of the accusations about PAP MPs. To say that PAP MPs do not support Government policies is heresy.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Prove me wrong.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: And to say that because we used dialects in the Marine Parade by-election was the reason why we won the by-election is hogwash. And neither can he prove that too.

As to complaints of Mr Chiam on what the PA and community centres do or did not do, for his constituency they are nothing new really, and the Hansard is full of instances of what he said were the "misdeeds" of PA and of the community centres against his Party. But as the Deputy Chairman of the People's Association mentioned just now, one of the reasons for the extension of the tenure of the elected members from one to three years is simply to be in line with the tenure of the appointed members which is also three years. I see nothing wrong in that. Besides, I think it is much more efficient for a member to be there for three years and be thinking about what to do in PA, for the people, mind you, not for PA, not for the Board members.

With regard to whether the PA ought to think of also taking part in other activities other than what they do in community centres and boys' clubs, it is also for the people. It is not for PA members, it is not for the Board members. So I do not see anything wrong in the PA trying to enlarge its activities to other than those in community centres and boys' clubs.

The other issue about investment of funds which he did not mention is to make more efficient use of the funds which CCs and these bodies have. But I also have this caution: perhaps the Minister could ensure that the investments in portfolios are those investments which should not incur losses because these are public funds.

Sir, that is about all I have to say on the Bill and I do support the Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information and the Arts (Encik Mohammad Maidin B P M): Sir, I rise in support of the Bill read by the Minister mainly because, on the whole, the proposed changes as recommended will help to make the PA continue to be efficiently run and to provide scope for further expansion in future.

Sir, before I continue, I must declare that I am an appointed member of the PA Board.

Sir, for the past many years, in fact, since its inception, the activities of the People's Association have obviously benefited many Singaporeans, young and old. And in the past many years, we have read and followed how the Association tried to adjust itself not only to continue with its basic activities of helping to promote racial harmony and social cohesion but also to make the community centres a hub of activities in various constituencies. We not only tried to make PA relevant to the older generation but also to the younger generation. So in this instance, Sir, the amendments proposed here will help PA continue to make the necessary adjustments and make itself relevant and useful to young and old, men and women.

Sir, from what I know, the existence of the community centres and the activities organised by the CCMCs have also benefited the residents in Potong Pasir and other constituencies not under the PAP. I also see no contradiction in the PA running various activities including, if some Members do not know, the National Community Training Institute (NACTI) and also the Outward Bound School, which means that under the present line-up of activities, PA does not only run community centres.

Sir, I hope these amendments and the plans they have put forward will not only help make PA a more relevant and attuned organisation but also help more Singaporeans to take part in various activities and propose activities more suitable to the changing needs of our younger generation.

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I also rise to support this Bill and the proposed amendments to the People's Association Act. I would just like to say, as Mr Maidin has said, that the People's Association has organised several activities, courses and programmes in the community centres which are beneficial to all people, people of all segments, different interest groups and even different political interest groups in Singapore. I would like to quote an example. In the case of the community centre in Thomson Constituency, I understand that an Opposition Member of Parliament indeed supports the community centre by sending his child to the kindergarten class organised by the community centre. This is a very good endorsement of the very good courses and programmes organised by the People's Association for community centres. I think it is a good endorsement by all sectors in Singapore. Therefore, it should not be said that our community centres are only political in nature.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence (Mr Matthias Yao Chih): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill.

Mr Chiam obviously does not support the Bill and in the process of his speech, he said that the PAP won a solid victory in Marine Parade GRC because the candidates spoke in dialect. I wonder, in his post-mortem analysis, if it is his view that the Marine Parade voters are so simple-minded that a few Hokkien and Teochew speeches will sway 73% of the voters to our platform.

Sir, our belief is that the Marine Parade voters supported the Prime Minister and supported our solid programme. It is as simple as that.

Sir, the People's Association has a very comprehensive list of activities and is constantly expanding on the activities. With the conversion of the community centres to community clubs, a lot of residents have signed up to be members of the clubs. This Bill allows the People's Association to be more flexible in its activities and I fully support it.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I thank the Members for their support of the People's Association (Amendment) Bill.

I make no apology for the fact that the PA is a unique creation of the PAP Government. We had the foresight in 1960 to create the PA, to galvanise and mobilise the people to support Government policies. We will continue to do that so long as the PAP Government is in power.

Sir, the PA is not a propaganda arm of the PAP. People who use the PA facilities know full well that no PAP activities are conducted in the PA's community centres. If that were the case, if the PAP were to conduct propaganda activities in the community centres then, as Mr Leong just pointed out, Opposition Members would not have sent their children to the PA's community centre's child-care centres.

Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Wong, do you want to give way to Mr Chiam?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I do not know why Mr Chiam is so agitated. I have not finished yet.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I repeat this question which has been asked many times in this House. As the Minister claims, if the PA and the community centres are non-partisan, why are the Opposition Members kept out of community centres?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: That is why I do not understand why he is so agitated because I am going to answer his question in due course.

Sir, the PA runs activities for the benefit of all residents. I think there is no country in the world, as far as I know, that has community centres like what we have, offering a wide range of facilities for recreational, educational and social purposes. Whatever people want, that can be legally done, that can be beneficial to them, that can be of use to them, the PA will run these activities. The PA will, of course, carry out Government policies. That is why the Government set up the PA in the first instance to propagate Government policies. It is quite logical and rational, therefore, to have the PAP MPs, who are after all the people forming the Government, to be the advisors to the community centres. I think it is quite difficult to envisage an instance where Opposition MPs will, in their capacity as advisors to the community centres, help to carry out Government policies. After all, their job is to oppose the Government, as we have seen in many instances. So, the simple answer is that we do not see how Opposition MPs can help to carry out Government policies and, therefore, logically, we do not see how they could be appointed as advisors to the community centres. It is that simple.

As to why the PAP MPs spoke dialects instead of Mandarin during the recent by-election --

Mr Chiam See Tong: I do not think it is for the Minister to answer that.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Well, you just raised the question.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Chiam, I suggest that you allow the Minister to finish his reply before interrupting.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir raised the point earlier on that PAP MPs do not support Government policies just because during the recent by-election they spoke dialects. That is why I am going to answer the question, unless he does not want to listen to my answer. Sir, speaking dialects at election rallies is not new. It has been done before, long ago, way back in the 1950s, and even after we had the "Speak Mandarin" campaign in 1980/81, we continued to have dialects spoken during rallies. I remember Dr Lee Siew Choh speaking in Cantonese. I heard him speaking in Cantonese. I remember Mr Low Thia Khiang speaking in Teochew. Therefore, dialects have been spoken in the past and they can be spoken in future rallies too. If the SDP thinks that by speaking dialects is a way of swaying people and they did not do it, then maybe they should try the next time.

Mr Chiam again raised the point about the Sennett Community Centre that when he became the Member for Potong Pasir we took away the Sennett Community Centre. But I think he has forgotten that in place of the old Sennett Community Centre, we have built a new modern community centre in Potong Pasir, almost right next to his branch, whereas the Sennett Community Centre is quite far away in the old Sennett Estate. The Sennett Community Centre is not misused. It is being used by community workers, who are contributing to the cause of nation building, for their activities. There is nothing wrong with that. There is no breach of trust or faith or anything. I am not a lawyer. We are continuing to use the facility for community purposes. Mr Chiam also objects to the amendment in clause 4 and he says that we are giving too much power to the PA to run all kinds of things. I think he has not kept pace with time. Since 1960, the PA has changed, not just in the activities they run, but also in the institutions, clubs and the various organisations that it has been running. The PA has taken over the National Community Leadership Training Institute. So that is an Institute. It does not appear in the present section 10(2)(f). We also run the Outward Bound School. Again, that is going to be reflected in this present Bill. The reason why we are updating it is to make PA relevant, and to continue to run and organise courses, activities, programmes, institutes, bodies, or whatever, that will be consistent with PA's objectives. Surely, we are not going to run, say, a secondary school. That is not part of PA's objective. They are not going to run a company to make money. That is not PA's objective. So have no fear. We will run activities, programmes, institutes, bodies, whatever, that will be consistent with PA's objective.

As I said, we will be careful with the management of funds. When the PA invests its money, it will try to get a good return. But we cannot assure ourselves that we will always make money or always get positive returns in all investments. But we will be very prudent in where we invest the funds.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I clarify with the Minister on a point? Is it true that the youth group leaders are asked to join the PAP if they wish to remain as leaders in the PA?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I have not heard of the PA insisting on all youth group leaders to be members of the PAP. But if they are willing to join the PAP, why not?

Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Speaker: Yes, Mr Chiam. You asked questions but you objected to the answer given, and you want to ask questions.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, can I get some clarification from the Minister? He said earlier on that the PA has been running institutes and the Outward Bound School. The amendment is only made today and I see that the powers of the PA have not been given retrospectively. In other words, all the activities that the PA has been running are ultra vires. All the funds that were allocated to the Outward Bound School and other institutes were done illegally because they have no powers. I hope the Minister can comment on that.

In regard to the community centre at Sennett Estate, when the PAP MP was there, they promised two community centres for the Constituency. I am asking the Minister why they are taking away one.

In regard to transfer of use, it is certainly not used as a community centre. Therefore, there is a clear breach of trust, even if it is used for a similar purpose, a charitable purpose. But it is certainly not used as a community centre, and I still maintain that that is a breach of trust.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I only quoted the example of the National Community Leadership Training Institute as an example. If Mr Chiam were to read the present Act carefully, which says that the PA can "generally do all such other acts as may be necessary to achieve the objects of the Association," then, of course, running the National Community Leadership Training Institute, even without the amendment, or running OBS without the amendment, will still not be ultra vires the People's Association Act. If Mr Chiam thinks so, then maybe he can challenge us in the court.

On the community centre, as I said, we built a better and modern community centre in place of the old one. There is no reason, and it will be wasteful, to duplicate services and activities in centres which are so close in a place that does not require both centres. We have in many instances closed down centres if we see that the usage has not been high. So it is not new. The fact that we closed the Sennett Community Centre does not mean that we are taking away one from him and not giving something in return. We have given the Potong Pasir residents a better centre. We have closed down other centres in other parts of Singapore which have not seen a high demand from the residents.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I do not know which section the Minister is referring to, when he said that the PA has the power to run the Outward Bound School and other institutes. If that were true, then we are all wasting our time here. Why spend so much time in trying to amend section 10(2)?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, he is a lawyer. I am not a lawyer. Let us look at the old Act? Have you got a copy of the Act?

Mr Chiam See Tong: No.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Go and look it up then. You are a lawyer. You would have a copy of this in your office. Section 10(2)(k) says the PA can:

'generally do all such other acts as may be necessary to achieve the objects of the Association.'

So his question is, if that is the case, why do we need to amend the Act? Why not? Because we want to update section 10(2)(f). There is nothing wrong with that either.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 1 -

The Chairman: The citation year will be changed to 1993. This will be done.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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