FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES

3.36 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, why is it that this PAP Government, which wastes no opportunity of boasting how learned its Ministers and its leaders are, and how gifted they are in leading the country, finds it so difficult to learn an essential truth. To learn the lesson that for the growth of a country economically, politically and socially, there is a place for dissent. That it is absolutely essential that constitutional dissent, lawful dissent, should be allowed and be even encouraged, if the country is to move forward.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Jeyaretnam: Developed countries have recognised this long years ago. And countries which are developing are beginning to learn this lesson. Countries with autocratic rulers are learning that they cannot keep out constitutional lawful dissent of its people, and they learn it sometimes at great cost to themselves. This has happened in a number of African countries. It has happened not very long ago in this part of the world when President Suharto, the former President of Indonesia, had to learn that he could not keep dissent out and had to give way to the people's demands for their voices to be heard. But this PAP Government stubbornly refuses to recognise the lesson.

There was a time, of course, when it held sway completely in this House from 1965 or so, to 1981, without any room for dissent, and during that time it perhaps suffered the opposition outside Parliament. But after 31st October 1981, when dissent found a place in this House, they have clamped down on any attempt for dissent, for democracy to grow in this country. One of the measures that had previously been used was, of course, the arrest of political leaders, detaining them, scaring them from taking part in politics, and keeping them away from any thoughts of offering themselves as candidates for a party other than the PAP to this House. But that, of course, was not the only method. The PAP knows that a political party cannot function if it is starved of funds. And so it uses this weapon very effectively.

Right from the beginning, there was this climate of fear brought about by the deliberate policies of the Government that kept people from contributing to Opposition political parties. The PAP themselves, of course, have no problems. They have only got to ask and they will get their donations. But the people in Singapore were scared into giving anything for the Opposition parties. And the PAP found that very effective, and so the result is that the Opposition parties find it a struggle, an uphill battle to try and maintain any form of dissent to further their calls for democracy in this country. And so this continues, and has continued for the last 50 years.

May I explain - I have not got very much time, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir - what I am saying by reference to a particular case.

After the recent judgment in the High Court ordering the Workers' Party to pay a substantial sum in damages and costs to a group of 11 plaintiffs, which included a PAP Member of Parliament, the Executive Council decided that it would appeal to the public for help to keep the Party continue with its struggle, because there was a threat to wind up the Party. Council took the decision to apply for a licence under the House to House and Street Collections Act.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have handed to the Clerk copies of the correspondence that has passed between the Party and the Police, and I would ask that it be distributed to those Members present, so that they may have sight of the correspondence that has passed. [Copies of correspondence distributed to hon. Members.]

We pointed out to the Police - there should be four letters, I think - that the Executive Council had taken the decision as a result of that judgment, and we asked whether we may have a licence to make an appeal. We took this decision as a result of two previous attempts, of which time does not permit me to go into in great deal but I will speak a bit later about them. So we wrote, "Will you give us a licence to make an appeal?" There was an immediate reply asking how did we propose to do it. We said that we would like a licence to be able to appeal over a period of time, and not just one day as in the case of Flag Days given to associations, and we said we propose to station perhaps one or two members in prominent places to receive any donations that the public may wish to give.

After some five weeks or so came the reply from the police that no licence could be granted to us under the House to House and Street Collections Act. The reason is apparently that it can only be granted to a worthy charitable cause. Nowhere in the Act does it say that a licence can only be granted to a worthy charitable cause. So we wrote back to the police asking to be shown where the Act restricted the grant of licences to only worthy charitable causes. We also asked the police to tell us under which of the grounds specified in section 4 of the Act a licence was refused, because there are specific grounds under which a licence may be refused. And, finally, we asked whether our request had been sent to the Minister and whether it was his decision or whether it was the decision of the police officer concerned. That letter was written about three weeks ago and we have not heard any reply, although I asked for an immediate reply.

We asked for this licence, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because, as I said, of two previous attempts. We first attempted to put out a leaflet for appeal when the Party's accounts were put into the receiver's hands by an ex-PAP Member of Parliament and we asked for the funds to be sent right to the official receiver, not to us. We were not soliciting in the streets. We were prosecuted for it. And sad to say, we were convicted, and appealed. The appeal was dismissed. We do not agree with that decision but that is the decision of the court. So there was that instance.

Another instance was when we made an appeal for help for the Secretary-General of the Party to meet certain judgements that had been made against him in suits brought against the Secretary-General. We had an account opened and asked for funds to be sent direct to that account. Again, we were not standing in the streets or going round from house to house to collect the monies. The police swooped in after a period of time, seized the monies, closed the account and said we could not appeal without their licence. Hence, the decision of the Executive Council. So now, we have applied and we have not heard.

I am asking in this House now for the Minister - I hope the Minister is replying - to give categorical answers to four questions. We do not want any "ifs" and "buts". We want a plain answer "yes" or "no". We want to know, first of all, why is it that no licence can be granted to us under the House to House and Street Collections Act. Was it his decision that the Workers' Party should not be given any licence? Or was it just the decision of the police officer? And why have we not had a reply to that question?

May I point out that, under the Act, the Minister has the power to exempt any person, including organisations or societies, from the provisions of the Act. Should he not consider exempting the Workers' Party from the provisions of this Act for this particular purpose? Any democratic government, conscious of its duty to the people to provide a place for dissent and the growth of democracy, would exempt a political party making an appeal from any law preventing it.

In the United Kingdom, for the last two years, political parties with representation in Parliament receive annual grants. We are not asking for annual grants. We are asking for a licence to collect lawfully and peacefully any contributions that the public may wish to give to us without any fear or worry.

The second assurance I want from the Minister here is, if he thinks no licence should be granted under the House to House and Street Collections Act, will he give a categorical assurance in this House that the police will not interfere if the Workers' Party made an appeal to the public, I repeat, not standing in the streets and collecting the money but an appeal to the public to send whatever they wish to the account of the Party or to hand it in to an appointed official of the Party. And together with that, an assurance from this House to Singaporeans that they are free to make any contribution or donation towards the Workers' Party. So I would like answers to these questions.

As I said, may we have clear, unequivocal answers, not an answer that is clouded by "ifs" and "buts" and "qualifications". We want a clear "Yes, we will grant you a licence, or we will not grant you a licence. But you may proceed to make an appeal provided you do not stand in the streets or do not go from house to house." We do not intend to do that, because the House to House and Street Collections Act forbids standing in the streets and collecting money or going from house to house because of any pressure that may be brought. We wish to make an appeal and those who are moved to give may send their donations to the Party. So may we have the clear assurances from the Minister?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam makes a mountain out of a molehill. He spends about 10 minutes introducing the subject, talking about a wide range of matters on fear and whatnot which had all been dealt with in the House. Then with the remaining time he has, he complains that the police has not replied to his latest letter regarding whether or not his Party could raise funds in the manner he had asked. In fact, no formal application has been made by the Party. This exchange started when the Workers' Party requested information from the police. Despite that, the police very graciously replied to the queries and I am told that the police has in fact sent out their latest reply. Perhaps, it has not reached him yet. So it is not a question of delay. It is only two weeks.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask, by way of clarification, when was it sent out because I have not seen it yet?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I understand from the police that they sent out the reply today.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Today! Thank you.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Two weeks from the time he wrote, ie, 20th July - the Public Entertainment Licensing Unit (PELU) issues 3,000 permits and applications a month - and even then not through a formal application but through an exchange of letters. That is the first point. Let us see it in context. Mr Jeyaretnam jumps the gun because the police has not replied yet. In fact, the police has been engaging him in a series of correspondence which I will ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute [Copies of correspondence distributed to hon. Members.].

Mr Jeyaretnam: Again, by way of clarification, may I ask the Minister of State whether he has read our letter. We asked if a formal application has to be made, would the Licensing Officer please let us know or send us the form, and we will make it. Have the police sent us an application form?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Whatever it is, the point is there has been no formal application.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Have you sent us?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, I will not allow any more clarification. I will allow the Minister his 10 minutes.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: The point I am trying to say is that there was an exchange of letters between the police and Mr Jeyaretnam which is still ongoing. Police has furnished the latest reply which is now before the House. But Mr Jeyaretnam jumps the gun and raises this motion in this House. Perhaps, he is indeed anxious because, as he said just now, he was convicted under the House to House and Street Collections Act in 1983, when he was fined.

Let me just reply substantively to his points, having cleared the procedural matters because it is not as cynical as Mr Jeyaretnam makes it out to be. Police has replied and the reply is before the House. Police position is very clear in that a licence under the House to House and Street Collections Act is required if an organisation wishes to solicit funds from the public by means of visits from house to house or soliciting in the streets or other public places. Police issues licences when such soliciting of funds is for charitable causes or worthy community projects.

Let me give some examples. Examples will include flag day collections for the Salvation Army, Children's Cancer Foundation, Walk-A-Jog donations for the National Council Against Drug Abuse, Singapore National Stroke Association, or Breast Cancer Foundation and for humanitarian aid collection, for example, by the Red Cross for Indonesia. All these licensees are charities registered with the Commissioner of Charities, or organisations with tax exempt status given by the IRAS, or members and affiliates of the National Council of Social Services. A licence will not be issued under the Act for collections that are for personal gain or political funding.

Surely, the Workers' Party's intention to collect funds to pay damages incurred for defaming others can neither be considered a charitable cause or worthy community project. Public charity should not be exploited to underwrite criminal or civil penalties arising from one's wrongdoing. This approach is based, as the letter says, on section 4(4) of the Act. Section 44(4)(f) specifies that the Commissioner of Police may, in his discretion, refuse to grant a licence if it appears to him that the purpose of the collection is objectionable on grounds of public policy. It is objectionable on grounds of public policy that a political party, whether ruling or opposition, because the law is applied equally and fairly across the board, be issued a licence to collect funds in a public place. Let me explain why.

The Police's professional view is that its policy of restricting the issuance of licences to charitable causes and worthy community projects should not be widened. Doing so will open the floodgates for other individuals or groups to apply to make collections for a whole host of causes. I am sure Singaporeans will agree with this approach.

What are the public policy considerations? Police does not want the proliferation of public solicitation of funds as it can constitute a public nuisance. For example, it does not want to see a situation where pedestrians, including tourists, are constantly accosted along Orchard Road by those seeking funds for a whole host of causes. I am sure the Singapore Tourism Board ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I by way of clarification ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: No more clarification for you.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I am sure the Singapore Tourism Board shares this view. In fact, a proliferation of such public solicitations would not just amount to a public nuisance but may even lead to frayed tempers caused by persistent hassling or harassment. All kinds of groups going door to door to solicit contributions for a whole host of causes cannot be any better.

In public places, this is all the more so when political parties are concerned. People of different political persuasions may be approached or pestered or urged to contribute. There may be hackling or quarrelling, all in public view. The situation may then escalate and others join in. There will then be public disorder. I think the Police legitimately, being concerned that people should not engage in being a public nuisance or there being public disorder, disallows such applications. But this is the second point. This answers Mr Jeyaretnam's first question.

This does not mean that political parties cannot raise funds. There are other ways they can do this. For example, they can raise funds through a private collection from party members, supporters, well-wishers and friends. Or they can hold fund-raising dinners. Indeed, they can make public appeals provided that there are no visits from house to house or soliciting on the streets.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I thought I made that clear.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Or in public places. The point is, as for the Worker's Party, we are assuming that there are Singaporeans willing to donate to the party to help it pay its cost. He asked for an assurance from this House that Singaporeans can contribute. I think it is not for the House to give an assurance. It is for the party, if it thinks it can get Singaporeans who want to contribute to its cause, to make its case and the public, I am sure, will examine the party on its record. Indeed, I understand that there is even an appeal on the Internet by somebody who may very well be a Worker's Party member appealing for funds for the party with the address and account number given.

In fact, up to now, there is no law against donations to political parties. But in the UK, for example, a draft Bill has been put before the UK Parliament which restricts donations to political parties. The restrictions include a ban on foreign donations requiring donations of 5,000 pounds or more to be made public and banning anonymous donations of 50 pounds or more. UK is tightening up in this area, even running before us.

The bottomline really is that Singaporeans abhor money politics. This healthy attitude is because the PAP Government took a strong stand against it from the outset. Unlike other countries, the Government scrupulously avoided travelling down this path. We have explained our approach before. The Senior Minister, when he was Prime Minister in 1989, spelt out three cardinal rules to keep money politics out of Singapore. These are, firstly, observe strict legal limits on election expenses, hence our cap of $2.50 per voter for single constituencies and $2.50 per voter divided by the total number of candidates for GRCs in a parliamentary election. Secondly, donations should never be made to individual Ministers or MPs, but to the party. And thirdly, political contributions must never become a means of buying influence or swaying Government policies. Hence, we have stood firm by these three tenets which have served us well.

What about foreign donations? Indeed, a case can be made to prohibit political parties from receiving funds from foreign sources. This is the position in many countries, such as Taiwan and South Korea. As I said earlier, the UK which currently allows foreign funding is re-considering its position. Prohibiting foreign funding of political parties would help prevent foreign influence and lobbying in the political arena. Foreign organisations and individuals who provide funding for political party may try to influence politics in Singapore. Some of these organisations or individuals may be fronts for foreign countries which want to see a party with a friendlier stance towards their country come into power in Singapore. In addition, some foreign organisations may, by channelling funds to political parties here, promote their causes which are incompatible with the unique make-up of our society.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The time allowed for this debate has expired.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I say something by way of reply?

Mr Deputy Speaker: There is no provision for you to reply.

The Question having been proposed at twenty four minutes to Four o'clock pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes past Four o'clock pm to Tuesday, 17th August, 1999.