POLITICAL DONATIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 1.53 pm

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

Introduction

The Political Donations Bill seeks to prohibit donations to political parties, political associations, and candidates in parliamentary election or presidential elections by persons and bodies who are not permissible donors. It also requires political parties, associations and candidates to report large donations that they have received.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is an independent and sovereign country. Foreigners should not be allowed to interfere in our domestic politics. It is no more legitimate for foreigners to pay money to support a political association or candidate than it is for them to have the right to support the associations' cause, or to vote for the candidate. Any Singaporean or organisation that allows himself or itself to be used by foreign elements, or collaborates or colludes with them to interfere in our internal affairs, is subverting the independence, integrity and sovereignty of the country. We must not allow this to happen. Politics in Singapore should be for Singaporeans only.

But Singapore is not immune to foreign interference. We have had to deal with interference in our domestic politics. In 1959, a Government Commission of Inquiry revealed that two sums of money totalling $700,000 were transferred from New York to Mr Chew Swee Kee, then Education Minister from the Singapore People's Alliance, the ruling party led by Mr Lim Yew Hock, then Chief Minister. I think many young Singaporeans do not even know about this. The Inquiry revealed that the money was meant as a political gift to the Labour Front (and I quote the report) "for the purposes of fighting subversion in the colony" and "strengthening" the Labour Front "as an effective party and bulwark against communism." Then in 1976, the Secretary-General of the People's Front, Mr Leong Mun Kwai, who is still around today, revealed during Police's investigations on the misappropriation of the People's Front's funds, that he was given financial assistance and made use of by a neighbouring intelligence service in a "black operation" against the interests of Singapore. A more recent case was in 1988, when a US diplomat interfered in Singapore's domestic politics. The diplomat actively cultivated Mr Francis Seow. Mr Francis Seow was advised by the diplomat how to establish a more effective opposition in Parliament and to set about seriously to recruit more young professionals into the opposition. This is gross interference in Singapore's domestic politics.

We should not condone such activities. Currently, we have no law prohibiting foreign funding of political parties, political associations and candidates of parliamentary or presidential elections. This Bill seeks to put in place a legislative framework to prohibit such foreign funding.

Sir, Singapore is not the first country to introduce such legislation. Many countries, such as the United States, Canada, India, France, Japan, Germany, already have laws either prohibiting or regulating foreign political donations. Hong Kong and Taiwan also have similar laws. In South Korea, under their Political Fund Act, foreigners and foreign corporations, except foreign corporations and organisations under the control of nationals of the Republic of Korea, are not allowed to contribute political funds to any party. The UK also has recently introduced a "Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill", which amongst others, aims to regulate political donations. It is therefore timely for Singapore to introduce controls against foreign funding. We have studied the various examples in other countries and generally adapted the UK Bill to suit our local context.

Overview

Let me now give an overview of what our Political Donations Bill would cover, before highlighting the main clauses of the Bill.

The Bill aims to prohibit political parties, political associations and candidates from accepting donations from foreign sources by treating these as impermissible. Political parties, political associations and candidates are allowed to accept donations, so long as these come from permissible sources. Similar to the approach taken in the UK Bill, we have chosen to define who is a permissible source or who the permissible donors are because it is easier to define who is permissible rather than who is impermissible. Any donations other than those from the defined permissible sources would constitute impermissible donations. If political parties, associations or candidates receive any donations from impermissible sources, they would have to return the donation to the donor. If they are unable to do so, they would have to surrender the donation to the Government's Consolidated Fund. Political parties and associations and candidates would also be required to report large donations, to ensure that they keep proper records of these donations.

Who does the prohibition cover?

There are three groups of people who will be covered by the prohibition against foreign funding. Firstly, all political parties, such as the People's Action Party, the Singapore People's Party, the Workers' Party, and other political parties registered with the Registry of Societies will be covered by the definition of "political association" in clause 2 of the Bill. They would not be allowed to accept foreign donations.

Secondly, candidates of any parliamentary or presidential elections and their election agents would also be covered by the prohibition. The prohibition would apply to both candidates fielded by political parties as well as independent candidates. The prohibition against foreign funding applies whether or not the candidates are successfully returned.

It is clear why registered political parties and candidates should be covered by the prohibition - they contest in elections, and if elected, can influence the policies and political process in Parliament. They can even form the government if they have the majority in Parliament. The election agent is responsible for all campaign funds (under the Parliamentary and Presidential Elections Acts) of the candidate. It is therefore logical that the election agent is also covered by the prohibition on foreign donations.

The third group covers any organisation, regardless of whether the organisation is registered as a society, a business or a company, so long as its objects relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore, and it is gazetted as a political association under the Bill. To leave out such organisations from the Bill would present a loophole for foreign interests to interfere in our domestic politics. Although the organisation's activities or objects may not be directed at procuring a candidate for election into Parliament or as President, it can accept foreign donations, promote a particular political platform and influence the political process, but in the interest of its foreign donor. This should not be allowed. The Straits Times, in a recent article on 13th May, "Regulating the flow of money in politics" highlighted an example where a political party in a foreign country is under investigation for allegedly "setting up non-profit organisations that channelled large contributions from foreign donors". Also, in Business Times, on 10th May, and in fact, in today's Straits Times, in reports focusing on the political donations laws in the US and other countries, highlighted the controversy on the use of "soft money" for purposes like "party-building" and "discussion of national policy issues", which are not directly for election purposes. Indeed, to confine politics to just contesting in elections and electioneering for candidates would leave out organisations who accept or make use of money from foreign sources to seek to change our laws or policies, or decisions of the Government. We have little control over activities and spending by organisations unconnected with candidates or parties during an election. Foreign groups can, through such unconnected organisations, influence local politics. Surely, this cannot be allowed. Such organisations should therefore be subject to the prohibition from accepting foreign donations.

The expression "relates wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore" in the Bill is not new. This is adapted from our Films Act. Further, a similar expression - "wholly or mainly of a political nature", can be found in the UK Broadcasting Act 1990, and has already been subject to interpretation by the UK Courts. As regards political activity, we would be taking into account whether:

(a) the activity is intended or would likely to affect voting in any election or national referendum in Singapore; or

(b) the activity is, for example:

(i) an election or a national referendum in Singapore;

(ii) a candidate or group of candidates in election;

(iii) an issue submitted or otherwise before electors in an election or national referendum in Singapore;

(iv) the government or a previous government or the opposition to a Member of Parliament;

(v) the current policy of the Government or an issue of public controversy in Singapore;

(vi) or a political party in Singapore or any body whose objects relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore, or any such branch of such party or body.

To define "politics" and "relate wholly or mainly to politics" as referring to "elections or electioneering activities" only as proposed by some civil society groups is therefore too narrow. All we need to do is to read the Washington Post article as reported in the Straits Times of 18th May this year and in it, there are details on certain groups, although they claim that they are not electioneering, not campaigning for political party or activity or candidate, who are actually influencing the cause of the activities of the candidates or parties.

To ensure transparency, the Bill empowers the Minister to gazette such an organisation as a political association for the purpose of the new law and be subject to the prohibition against foreign funding. Such an approach ensures that organisations would be fully aware that, if they are gazetted as a political association, they are prohibited from accepting donations from impermissible sources. If they are not gazetted, then they are not required to follow the requirements of this Bill.

In deciding whether to gazette any organisation as a political association, the Minister would have to consider carefully all relevant factors, such as its objects and activities, its links with foreign organisations, and the support it receives from such foreign organisations.

Permissible donors

Under clauses 8 and 14 of the Bill, political associations and candidates are only allowed to accept donations from permissible sources.

All Singapore citizens, who are at least 21 years old, and all Singapore-controlled companies, are considered permissible donors. A Singapore-controlled company refers to a company registered with the Registrar of Companies, and the majority of its directors and members are citizens. All other sources would be considered foreign in nature and deemed impermissible.

Naturally, Singaporeans, who have attained the age of maturity of 21 years old and above, should be permissible donors. Singapore companies are allowed to make political donations, as they are our corporate citizens, and should have an interest in Singapore's well being. After all, political stability is a key fundamental for economic growth, and provides the environment for businesses to flourish.

Unincorporated organisations are not permissible donors. Political associations and candidates therefore cannot accept donations from these organisations. Unincorporated associations include trade unions, societies, charities, mutual benefit organisations, businesses, professional firms and so on. Trade unions, societies, charities, mutual benefit organisations are set up for specific purposes. As it is now, most if not all of these associations are already prohibited from making political donations under their respective Acts or constitutions. Sole proprietors, partnerships and professional firms have no separate legal identities from their owners. That is to say, the profits and losses of the business are the profits and losses of the individual owners. Hence, if they wish to make donations, they should do so as individuals, as long as they are Singaporeans and are 21 years old and above.

Anonymous donations

The Bill allows a political association to accept anonymous donations of less than $5,000 in any one financial year of the association. Candidates can also accept up to a similar amount of anonymous donations during the period of 12 months prior to his declaration made before nomination day. This is to take into account that some well-wishers may wish to remain anonymous in making donations to political associations or candidates. We have chosen a reasonable limit of $5,000 to strike a balance between allowing well-wishers to make small anonymous donations and not opening up a loophole for significant foreign donations to slip through as anonymous donations.

What is a donation?

Clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill deal with the definition of donations and how the donations are valued. These provisions are adapted from the UK Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. Donations are defined broadly to include all goods or services, such as any gifts of money or property, subscription and affiliation fees, loans, property, services and other facilities provided to the candidate or political association that are not on commercial terms. For example, if the goods or services are rendered to a political association at less than commercial rates, the value of the donation would be the difference between the actual cost to the association and the cost which the association would have incurred if it had been provided on commercial terms.

Donations would not include any notional benefits of airtime during lawful party political broadcasts, or any postage-free elections communications authorized by written law. These benefits are granted by or pursuant to our written laws, and would not be considered as donations.

Like the UK Bill, donations would also not include any voluntary services by an individual. It is neither practical nor feasible to put a value to voluntary services. For example, if an individual contributes, in his own time, professional services within his own sphere of expertise, such as accounting expertise, to a political party, this service would not be regarded as a donation. He could be self-employed, or he could take leave from his employer to provide his service to the political party. As long as he volunteers his services in his own time, it would not be regarded as a donation. However, if the individual is paid by his employer while providing services to a political party, the services would count as a donation by the employer to the political party. The value of the donation is the commercial rate of providing the services. What should a political party or a candidate do upon receiving a donation?

Clauses 9 and 15 of the Bill require every political association or candidate or his election agent to take all reasonable steps to identify the donor and to determine whether the donor is a permissible donor before accepting any donation received.

If the donation is from an impermissible source, the political association, candidate or his election agent must return the donation to the foreign source. If that cannot be done, the donation must be returned to the person who transmitted the donation or to the bank, if the money was drawn from a bank. If that is also not possible, the donation must be surrendered to the Registrar of Political Donations.

If a political association receives an anonymous donation, it must ensure that it has not accepted $5,000 or more of such donations in the year in question. Any anonymous donations above the allowed limit must be returned either to the person who transmitted it or the bank, or in the last resort, surrender it to the Registrar. Similar provisions operate with regard to candidates and election agents receiving anonymous donations.

Reporting of Donations

Sir, the Bill provides for political associations and candidates of parliamentary or presidential elections to submit a donation report and a declaration on political donations to the Registrar of Political Donations. By requiring a declaration to be submitted with a donation report, it would obviate the need for the political associations to list all donations, which would be administratively tedious. The declaration would state that the political association or candidate did not accept any foreign donations as well as anonymous donations beyond the permissible limit, ie, less than $5,000. Political associations and candidates need to list only large donations of $10,000 or above in the donation report. This reporting requirement ensures that political associations and candidates keep proper records of the donations which they receive.

Let me elaborate on the reporting requirements.

Political Associations

Sir, clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill require political associations to submit a donation report and a declaration to the Registrar within 31 days from the close of its financial year. This is similar to current practice whereby political parties are already required under the Societies Act to submit their annual returns and statement of accounts to the Registrar of Societies within 31 days from the close of their financial year or the Annual General Meeting, if there is one.

The political association should list in the donation report all donations of $10,000 or more, whether it is a single donation, or a series of donations from the same source, which adds up to $10,000 or more during that financial year. For example, if the political association accepts three donations from the same individual donor, and the three donations add up to more than $10,000 in the financial year, the political association should also record this series of donations in the donation report.

The political association would also have to submit a declaration with the donation report that it has not received any donations from impermissible sources, as well as anonymous donations beyond the permissible limit of $5,000.

The president, the secretary and the treasurer are responsible for the preparation and accuracy of the report. The president, the secretary and the treasurer are the key officers of a political association, and should therefore be responsible for the political donations. They have to ensure that the donation report and the declaration are submitted on time, and declare that the donation report is complete and accurate. Candidates

Sir, clause 18 of the Bill requires every person who intends to take part in any parliamentary or Presidential election to submit to the Registrar a similar donation report and declaration. The donation report and declaration are to be made after the issue of the writ of election, and sent to the Registrar of Political Donations at least two clear days before Nomination Day.

The donation report and declaration by a prospective candidate are similar to those by a political association. That is, the prospective candidate must list in the donation report all single donations of $10,000 or more, and any series of donations from the same permissible source which adds up to $10,000 or more, for the year prior to his declaration. He would state in the accompanying declaration that the donation report is accurate and complete, and that he has not accepted donations from impermissible sources as well as anonymous donations beyond the permissible limit of $5,000. Thereafter, the Registrar would issue a political donation certificate to the candidate.

The candidate is then required to submit the political donation certificate, together with his other papers required for nomination purposes, to the Returning Officer on Nomination Day. The nomination of his candidacy would only be accepted if he can present the political donation certificate together with his nomination papers and other legal requirements.

After the election, the candidate and his election agent would be required to submit to the Registrar within 31 days of the declaration of election results, a second donation report and declaration. This second report and declaration are similar to the first declaration and donation report, except that it covers the period from the time of the first report to the time of the second report. This second report is necessary, as in practice the candidate is likely to receive donations during this second period, when he is campaigning for the elections. Donors

Clause 21 of the Bill requires donors of "multiple small donations" to political associations, which add up to $10,000 or more in a calendar year, to report to the Registrar. This is a counter-evasion measure. It helps the Registrar to keep track of small multiple donations that add up to a significant amount of $10,000 within a short period of one year. The reporting requirement will also lessen the tedious task of verifying such donations. A donor would not need to declare if the total donation is less than $10,000 in a calendar year. He also would not need to declare if he made a single donation, or a few donations, each of which is $10,000 or more. In this case, the political association should have captured these donations in the donation report. A similar requirement can also be found in the UK Bill.

Reports Not Open to Public Inspection

The donation reports submitted to the Registrar of Political Donations would not be open to the public. Allowing public inspection of the donation reports could inhibit permissible donors from donating to political associations or candidates.

As it is now, political parties, like all other registered societies, are required to submit annual returns and statement of accounts to the Registrar of Societies and these annual returns and statement of accounts are also not available for public inspection.

Offences

Let me now turn to the offences under the Bill.

Sir, under this Bill, accepting foreign donations per se would not be an offence. Instead, the foreign donations would just be forfeited if they are not or cannot be returned to the donor. Clauses 11 and 17 of the Bill enable the Public Prosecutor to apply to a District Court to order the forfeiture of a donation from an impermissible source which a political association or a candidate or his election agent has accepted. Clauses 11 and 17 also provide for appeals to the High Court against the decision of the District Court.

Each of the responsible officers of a political association or a candidate or his election agent would commit an offence if any of them makes a false declaration in relation to political donations. For example, if a political association accepts a foreign donation but the declaration accompanying the donation report declares otherwise, each of the responsible officers would have committed an offence of false declaration, unless he can show that he did not know and could not reasonably have known that the declaration was false. This is reasonable since the political association is in the best position to know the circumstances under which the donations were received.

If convicted of false declaration, then each of the responsible officers of the political association would be liable to a fine of not exceeding $5,000 or an imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or to both. Repeat offenders would face higher penalties - a fine not exceeding $20,000 or an imprisonment not exceeding 3 years, or to both.

Under the Bill, it would be an offence if political associations and candidates and their election agents do not submit the donation reports and declaration within the stipulated time, for example, for the political association, it would be within 31 days from the close of the association's financial year. If convicted, each of the responsible officers of the political association would be liable to a fine of up to $2,000.

Clause 23 of the Bill makes it an offence for a person to facilitate the evasion of the restrictions on impermissible donations. For example, if an individual, who is a permissible donor, accepts money from an impermissible donor and donates the money to a political association to circumvent the prohibition, the person would have committed an offence. He would be liable upon conviction to a fine of not more than $3,000, or to imprisonment for not more than 12 months, or to both.

Clause 30 of the Bill makes it an offence to alter, suppress or destroy any document he is required to produce to the Registrar, with a view to evade the provisions of the Bill.

Clause 27 of the Bill empowers the Registrar to compound any offence under the Act. This provides the flexibility for the Registrar to offer composition of not more than $500 for the less serious offences. Offences which carry a mental element, such as false declaration of donations, facilitating in the evasion of the restrictions on impermissible donations, would not be made compoundable. As per normal practice, the compoundable offences would be prescribed by regulations.

Consequential Amendments

Finally, clauses 36 and 37 of the Bill make related amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Presidential Elections Act. A prospective candidate would have to deliver to the Returning Officer, together with his nomination papers on nomination day, a political donation certificate issued by the Registrar of Political Donations. If he fails to do so, his nomination would be rendered void and may be rejected.

Conclusion

Sir, this Bill aims to keep foreign interference out of our domestic political process. It does not prevent political associations and candidates from accepting donations, so long as the donations are from Singaporeans or Singapore-controlled companies.

In drafting the Bill, we have kept the framework as simple as possible. No doubt, the associations would have to put in some effort to account for the donations that they receive. But this small effort would go a long way in upholding the independence and integrity of our political process. I have made such a long speech to explain this because I think it is necessary for Members to have a clear understanding of the Bill.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Marine Parade): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.

Money and politics seem to be frequently linked together. It has troubled the politics of many countries. Recently, we read in the newspapers that the Prime Minister of a certain country wept openly because his political party was baffled by money politics. In the recent presidential election in Taiwan, we also saw the "black gold" politics prevailing over Taiwan. According to newspaper reports, some people in the United States alleged that China had attempted to make political donations to the Democratic Party, and created a huge hue and cry out of that.

Now, let us come back to politics in Singapore. I think we are fortunate because we do not have such problems. The reason is that the PAP Government has consistently maintained its stand on keeping politics clean and transparent here. All these years, the Government is against and resists foreign interference in our domestic affairs, including the influence through financial means. Now that we have this Bill before us, we should be able to further enhance and institutionalise clean government, to safeguard the sovereignty and integrity of our country, and to promote the development of transparent politics. Therefore, I think this Bill is in keeping with our national interests.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does this Bill disadvantage the opposition parties? I do not think so. Everyone is equal before the law, the opposition parties and the ruling party alike. Every party must come under the law, and so this Bill will not hamper the development of any opposition party in Singapore.

Under a clean political system, whether a candidate wins or loses an election is dependent on whether or not he gets the support of his electorate. I think the key does not lie in whether this candidate or his political party has the money, or whether the party has political donations. The key lies in whether this candidate or the party has the platform that is in the interest of the country and the people, and can be identified by the people. The financial power of the candidate and his party is irrelevant.

The next question is whether this Bill will affect the civic organisations or civil society. I do not think so. On the contrary, I feel that this Bill will encourage civic organisations to develop and prosper. This is because we are now encouraging active citizenship, encouraging our people to take part in our public affairs, to show their concern in the society and the community.

So if you have a civic organisation whose objective and motivation is very clear, transparent and proper, then why should they fear? Why should they worry at all, unless they have ulterior motive, and they have to act very surreptitiously.

As to whether this Bill will deter people from donating money to political parties, I do not think so. Ours is an open and transparent political system. Unless a person has some ulterior motive, unless this person has incorrect objective, he has nothing to fear or worry at all. Why should he worry about donating money to support a certain candidate or a certain political party? He can donate money to a party or a candidate that he believes can represent his interest.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill cannot give us 100% protection or safeguard. In other words, it cannot fully and completely deter certain people, particularly those people with ulterior motives, to work through loopholes to try and influence the political process in Singapore. But I think that overall, with our strong political structure, we can maintain clean, open and transparent politics. Ultimately, it will depend on those who take part in politics themselves - whether such people have the moral conduct. Therefore, I feel that even with this Bill around, it can only give us certain protection and safeguard. But we must still continue to insist that all those who take part in politics must have the integrity and good moral conduct, so as to continue upholding our transparent, clean and open political tradition in Singapore. That Singapore has this clean, transparent and open political tradition is, to a large extent, attributed to our political leaders who themselves maintain very noble moral standards in politics and they have established the good example for all to emulate. Therefore, even though we now have this Bill, we must continue to defend and uphold this tradition.

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap: Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

This Bill is nothing new, as most countries prohibit external political donations. Although it is not in our political culture to allow external influence to undermine our political system, it is timely to legislate this in case some political parties are tempted to become puppets of outside agency. Singapore is a very small country, strategically located both geographically and politically in this region, and therefore we always play a significant role in the global political arena, and may be courted by other countries for their own political agenda. We must therefore ensure that our independent stand on international affairs should never be compromised and come under any influence by other nations, big or small. Because of our openness, we must ensure that Government must not be subjected to any outside political pressure to influence the way we govern ourselves. We must maintain our national integrity at all costs.

Donation of any kind from foreign sources invariably means influence of our politicians involved as those who pay out of funds must have their own ulterior motive and agenda. Therefore, it is necessary that we introduce the Bill to ensure that our political parties and candidates taking part in any of our parliamentary or presidential elections uphold their independence and not be subjected to any outside interference.

I am glad that the Opposition Members, Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang, have come out in support of the Bill, as was reported in the press. However, when they raised objection to some of the provisions to safeguard the administration of the Bill, they betrayed their sincerity in their support for the Bill. What is the use of having a legislation with no safeguard for its implementation, if the legislation is so easily circumvented, and if one can find so many ways to get around the rules and regulations governing the Act? Surely the introduction of the Bill becomes meaningless. In fact, on Thursday, 18th May, the Straits Times reported that in the US, a member of the Federal Election Commission lamented that, "The Federal Election law is in serious gravity of losing all effectiveness." The aim of the law enacted 25 years ago has eroded over time because despite the tight rules and regulations in place, the US Election is being influenced by people who found ways to exploit the loopholes to achieve their personal objectives. Therefore, far from being too stringent in the provision of all safeguards in the Bill, such as those laid out in clauses 8, 12, 13 and 14 which maintain that the candidates or political parties be transparent in receiving any donation from permissible sources and state their conditions in which political parties can accept political donations, in actuality, it would not be sufficient to cover all the loopholes which can be exploited by those intending to exert influence on our political parties or candidates and for those in the same party or candidates who want to act as proxy for some outside agency.

Today, in the Forum page, a group of readers is concerned that the definition of political association in the Act would affect adversely the group of civil societies in Singapore. I am puzzled because civil societies are supposed to be non-partisan and they are supposed to be concerned citizens who speak up for Singaporeans on matters relating to Government policy governing Singapore. They should not be supporting any political party or candidates and definitely have no reason to receive donations from foreign sources for these purposes. Therefore, to call for the re-definition of political association to mean two-thirds of an organisation's annual funding and activities being spent on supporting the election of political candidates is meaningless. Associations or societies are either political or non-political. It cannot be two-thirds political and one-third non-political. It is absurd to see how an association or society which is committed to a cause can be so wishy-washy and be so indecisive as to which role they are to play. Besides, if the term is being re-defined, what is to stop political parties from establishing civil societies or associations as a fund to channel foreign funds for their political use? It is precisely this and I feel that there are still many ways in which one can circumvent the Bill. Offhand, I can think of two.

Firstly, what if a political candidate writes a book, never mind the substance of the contents, and an outside agency buys up 1,000 copies at an inflated price to generate the necessary funds intended to be given to the party or the candidate? Secondly, a political candidate can be invited to give a lecture in another country and be given a huge honorarium which is not commensurate with the substance of the lecture, but purely as a means to justify the donation. This is definitely not acceptable. If the candidate is a respectable statesman or someone who is being held in high esteem by the international community, then the honorarium can be justified. But if some unknown political aspirant is given a huge sum of honorarium for such a lecture, then obviously something is very wrong. These are just two examples which can be used by unscrupulous foreign sources to generate funds for the political party and candidate they intend to assert influence, and I am sure there are many more if we do not comprehensively tighten all the loopholes.

I would like the Minister to consider ways to tighten the Bill by introducing a clause where the onus is on the political party or candidate to prove that any funds received by any means should be bona fide and not as a cover for such funds to be generated for political use from outside sources. It is also necessary to monitor other channels where the funds can be made that have not been covered by the Bill. The Registrar of Political Donations should be given more power to investigate funds which he is not totally satisfied that they are being donated in accordance with the Political Donations Bill.

I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.49 pm until 3.15 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.15 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak at this early stage of the Second Reading. This Bill particularly concerns the opposition parties and it is very vital for the opposition parties. I thank you for recognising that and you have given me the opportunity to speak.

Sir, let us make no mistake about this Bill. This Bill is going to have far-reaching implications on the political development in this country. Let no one misunderstand that. This Bill, I say, is sounding the death knell for political development along the road to a greater democracy in this country. That is what it is all about.

We have heard this afternoon from the Minister but what he has said does not, even in one iota, tell us the need for the introduction of this Bill in Singapore and particularly at this point of time. It is completely silent on that. May I tell the Government that questions have been raised outside and I have spoken to others and they say, "Why do you think the Government is introducing this Bill now?" They need to be answered. So I ask the Minister, when he replies, to try and answer that question. What is the burning necessity for this Bill to be introduced in Singapore at this particular moment? And furthermore, there are a number of other things wrong about the way this Bill is being presented in Parliament. It was read for the first time on the 9th of this month. Barely 12 days after that, we are asked to pass this Bill. What is the great haste? Because this Bill concerns Singaporeans, it is a question that concerns Singaporeans, the growth of political development in this country. Every Singaporean should be interested in that. Where are we heading in the way of political development? Why is the Government rushing this Bill through? There have been no opportunities given for discussion on this Bill outside Parliament. There has been no opportunity given by way of a White Paper explaining the reasons for this Bill. It will be passed as though it is just an ordinary Bill, and people should not worry too much about it. This is no ordinary Bill.

Sir, I rise to oppose this Bill, not only myself but also my Party. The previous speaker mentioned that the Member for Hougang from my Party supported the Bill. I have clarified this with the Member. It would appear that he was quoted out of context. Of course, the Workers' Party is second to none in not wanting foreigners to come and tell us how to run our country. But what does this Bill do?

This Bill, for all its high-sounding words from the Minister, is attempting to dry up for the political parties in Singapore getting monies to further the cause of democracy for Singapore. The People's Action Party, I am quite sure, is flushed with funds. We have not been told how much they have got in the kitty. Would they like to tell us? We will then tell you how much the Workers' Party has, but I am sure the Government knows what the Workers' Party has. I do not speak for the other opposition parties but I am sure that they do not have anything like what the PAP can boast of in the way of funds. May I ask: is that a healthy state of affairs for Singapore that whilst the Government ruling party is able to tap money, the other political parties which oppose the Government are starved of any funds?

I see that the PAP Treasurer, in a statement to the papers some days ago, mentioned that quite a substantial sum comes from the members themselves and he picks up the monthly pledges or donations made by the Ministers. Of course, the Ministers can afford to give out of their huge salaries that they are being paid from public monies. May I ask: is that one of the reasons why Ministers are paid such huge sums so that the Party may get some of the money? But he makes a valid point, and that is this. This is the Treasurer of the People's Action Party, and he says this Bill may prevent people who have given donations anonymously in the past to think whether they should continue to give any donations anonymously. There you have it. This is to try and cut off from the other political parties people who would like to give money to the political parties but who wish to remain anonymous. They will not. Of course, they will be quite happy to give donations to the People's Action Party and even have their names recorded so that the Party knows that they are good Singaporeans who support the Government.

I ask the Minister: is there any evidence? Let us be serious about this Bill. Is there any evidence that opposition parties have received funds from outside Singapore? Have you got any evidence? Let us have it instead of making glib statements that we must tell our political parties not to be funded from outside. Let us have it here and now. Is there any evidence, other than foreign interests, that vested interests in Singapore are using opposition political parties for their own ends? Let me tell the House that no company in Singapore will want to make any donation to an opposition party. That is the grim state of affairs in Singapore. While they will be ready to open their purses for the PAP, they will not make any donation to the opposition. What are the opposition parties to do? They will be crippled. This is an attempt to further cripple them.

The Minister refers to other countries but there has been public disquiet about huge funds going to political parties by people trying to influence policies and decisions. We know all that. Do we have that in Singapore? There is a Bill before the UK Parliament. I have tried to get hold of the Bill but I was not able to get the whole Bill, but I have seen a little bit of it. There, it was because of disquiet among the public over huge sums of money being paid. Quite honestly, let us have it. What is the motive and purpose for this Bill at this present moment in Singapore? I shall have a lot to say more, Sir, on the lack of any public discussion, but time is running on and I want to try and explain why I think this Bill has been introduced.

The Minister refers to past instances and I see he has brought in the Chew Swee Kee episode. That was the sum received by the Government in power, not by an opposition political party. I know all about that because I took part in that inquiry before Justice Buttrose. How is that an instance of the need for this Bill at this particular stage? Then he brings in Mr Francis Seow. Was there any suggestion that he received any monies? Did the PAP have any evidence that the US Embassy was giving him large sums of money? I ask the Minister to explain in this House whether this is not another instance of the PAP Government crying wolf to further strangle opposition parties? This is not mere rhetoric, Mr Speaker, Sir. This Government has a history of crying wolf whenever it wants to introduce legislation or take decisions which they think the people may not be ready to accept.

I want to instance four such cases. In 1972, at an election rally, a PAP candidate seeking election to Parliament uttered a monstrous lie that the Workers' Party had received $600,000 from Malaysia. $600,000 - my foot! We took him to court for uttering this monstrous lie, but this was all part of the PAP's plan then. Because even before the elections, there was publicity about opposition parties, particularly directed against the Workers' Party, which I had joined in 1971, of being used by foreign agents and foreign powers. He did not seek to justify his statement. There was no truth in that statement. But we lost our case because the Judge, the late Mr Justice F A Chua, dismissed the action on a purely technical reason that we had not pleaded the Hokkien text, or was it some other dialect text, in our statement of claim.

Then, showing greater concern, the Constitution was amended to ensure that the sovereignty of Singapore was not surrendered, except only upon a referendum. This is to keep up the pretence, Mr Speaker, Sir, that opposition parties will be ready to surrender Singapore's sovereignty to foreign powers.

Then, next in line, is the amendment to the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act which came in 1974. I stand corrected. And I spoke on this Bill when I moved a motion for the setting up of an independent newspaper in Singapore sometime last year. There, the reason for that Bill was that foreigners were using the newspapers to influence politics in Singapore. I mentioned of speeches in this House by Members - there was no Opposition Member in Parliament at that time - saying, "We can't allow foreign devils, foreigners, to take over our newspapers. We've got to stop all this." They said, "There was also evidence that foreign embassies were using the newspapers with their advertisements." All well and good, outwardly. But what was the real purpose? Speaker after speaker spoke of the need for Singaporeans to control the newspapers. Yes, but what was the result of that Bill, as I said last year? The result was to pass over total iron-fisted control over the press to the Government. The Government had to be consulted through its two classes of shareholders - the ordinary and preferred shareholders, who had to be appointed by the Government. And every appointment of any staff had to be made by these preferred shareholders appointed by the Minister. So, what was previously a de facto control of the press became legal with the passing of the 1974 Bill. The Government could then point to the section and say, "There you are, we've got the section here. You can't appoint so-and-so as editor. You've got to have the permission of all the preferred shareholders." So, that is another instance of crying wolf that there was a great danger to Singapore that newspapers were being taken over by foreigners.

And then came the arrests in 1987. This was not a Bill. This was an Executive decision to arrest 22 persons. Some of them were accused of being proxies for foreign agents to take over the Workers' Party. One can see that all this was directed at the Workers' Party. The Government was saying that these people were going to take over the Workers' Party, and so, as I said then, a fanciful case was built up, that Marxists were taking over the Workers' Party. They had to be stopped. The Workers' Party had to be saved. Well, it was a lot of nonsense. And why? The PAP saw that the Workers' Party was becoming a real threat. After the 1981 election, the PAP vote dropped 121/2%. This is not fiction. This is a fact. Never before had the PAP vote dropped to that extent. So, the writing was on the wall for the PAP. And so the Workers' Party had to be branded and some of us were prosecuted and I had to leave Parliament, purely out of convictions which the Privy Council said were wrong.

Then there was an amendment to the Constitution to bring in an Executive President. Again, the reason and the rationale that was put out for public consumption was that the opposition parties, if they were allowed to continue and take over the Government, would squander our reserves. So we have got to somehow put a brake on that. There was no question about the PAP safeguarding its reserves. The PAP will safeguard the reserves. It was the opposition parties that would squander and so we had an Executive President. But now, as it turned out, after all that show, the President was not given the powers. Things continued in much the same way, but the PAP was crying wolf to try and bring in that dramatic change in the way this country is run.

So, I would ask the Minister, when he replies, to try and direct his mind to my question and not tell us about the 1959 donation received by a Government Minister, not tell us about Mr Francis Seow, because they are all completely irrelevant. They are things of the past. We want to know whether there is a need now. Why are you introducing this Bill now? What is the danger to Singapore now? It is like whenever I ask any question about the defence expenditure, they say, "Oh, we've got to be ready to meet threats." When I ask where is the threat coming from, they say, "Oh, no, we can't answer that question." It is all in the mind.

Would the Minister please be specific about the need for this Bill at this point of time? Or is it merely an attempt, seeing that elections may have to be held within the next year or so, to further strangle the opposition parties from putting up a proper fight at the next elections? The history of this Government has been one long series of attempts to cripple, obstruct, opposition parties making headway. Are we not interested in greater democracy in this country? Will you tell us now? Is it the intention of the Government that Singapore should continue as it has with the PAP in government, decreeing what has to be done in Singapore without the people's participation? People need to know all this. Are you for or are you against greater democratic development in Singapore? Are you for or are you against greater participation by the people in political decision? The Minister concentrates on foreign donations. But what he does not realise, or he perhaps tries to hide, is that it dries up our own people here through the fear that exists in their minds. Are you capitalising on that fear?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you. The Member for Hougang says yes.

Mr Speaker: Order. Your time is up, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have permission to clarify a statement made by my Secretary-General?

Mr Speaker: Mr Low, it is your turn to make your speech.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: My Secretary-General mentioned just now that the Straits Times misquoted me. I wish to say that the Straits Times has not misquoted me. I have indeed told the Straits Times that I am of the view that political parties and politicians aspiring for public office should not accept donations or funding from foreign sources. I stand by what I said. But holding that view does not automatically put me in a position that I would accept or support the view as presented in Parliament. I suppose the problem arises because a Member might have misquoted the Straits Times.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, there are three objectives of this Political Donations Bill. Firstly, legislating to require supporters donating to political parties to furnish their names, residential address and identity card numbers, so as to clip the financial resources of the political parties, thereby diminishing the development capacity of the opposition parties.

Secondly, to provide the PAP Government with better access to information on the financial sources of the opposition parties and background of the supporters so as to hit at the opposition parties whenever necessary.

Thirdly, to avoid the event of the pseudo-phenomenon of the so-called opening up under "Singapore 21" unintentionally resulting in civic organisations turning to support the opposition parties.

As we all know, when a political party involves itself in political activities, it needs to have a lot of funds, particularly in the situation of Singapore, where it is said that "no money, no talk". For example, if an opposition party wants to hold a forum or a mass rally, it needs money to pay for the rent of the stadium and the various venues, and the printing of publicity materials. But the PAP does not need to incur these expenses because they can make use of the CCs, RCs and other Government machinery to spread the news. They can even make use of the Feedback Unit to collect information and convey the PAP's philosophy and policies.

On operating expenses of a political party, we can see that the party headquarter's rental itself will exceed $5,000 a year. The PAP has a team of highly paid Ministers who can donate to the Party and there are many, many more MPs than the opposition parties. Getting huge sums in donations to the PAP is no problem at all. But for the opposition parties, they do not have such substantial and stable donations.

The opposition parties depend on donations of the ordinary citizens and proceeds from sale of party newspapers and petty donations from the people, ranging from 50 cents to less than a hundred dollars. When accumulated, these donations can add up to more than $5,000 in a year. The Bill provides that in the event of anonymous donations amounting to more than $5,000 in a year, the Government can confiscate them. This amounts to saying that for even a 50-cent donation, we need to record the identity card number of the donor to show that the donation comes from a permissible donor; otherwise the donation will be confiscated. In the past, no receipt was issued for this type of donations.

Another type of donation comes from anonymous supporters who are willing to financially support opposition parties or the individual candidates. But in view of the present political environment in Singapore, they do not wish to be placed on record that they have been donating to the opposition parties. So even if we issue official receipts to them, they would normally request that we put it under "anonymous". With the passage of this Bill, the opposition parties would not be able to accept their donations, and their financial strength will thus be diminished.

On the other hand, with the emergence of the Internet, the opposition parties now have more effective means to post their bank account number on the website so that donations can be deposited into their bank accounts directly, without worry. But with the passage of this Bill, if the donors do not provide their personal particulars, they become anonymous donors. Eventually the donations will be confiscated by the Government. Even with the donors' particulars provided, the responsible officers of the opposition parties are unable to ascertain whether the donors are permissible donors. If they choose to accept these donations, they face possible prosecution in court. So this Bill has attained its first objective of clipping the opposition parties' financial resources, thereby causing the opposition parties to be short of financial resources needed for their development.

Secondly, let me talk about the second objective of this Bill. The Bill requires that the political parties submit annual donation reports to the Registrar, giving details of the donors' names, addresses and IC numbers, and also the Government can require the parties to submit other information, at any time. We do not know what sort of information they want in respect of each donor, and how this information may be used. I think only the PAP will know.

The most absurd provision is that any person who donates more than $10,000 in a year to a political party or a political association is required to submit a donation report to the Registrar; failing which he can be charged in court under this law.

Sir, when the PAP Government introduces such a Bill, it is invading the rights to free donations of the ordinary people of Singapore. In future, they will not dare to donate, because once they donate money to the opposition parties, they are inviting trouble for themselves. This Political Donations Bill covers also other political associations. The Minister can, at any time, gazette any organisation as a political association to be covered by this Bill.

The PAP Government has been talking about opening up a civil society. There are a lot of intellectuals in Singapore who are actively contemplating participation in our local politics. The introduction of this Bill is a heavy blow to them. The message the PAP Government wants to convey is very clear, that is to say, if any so-called civic organisation wants to criticise the Government or even to challenge the Government, then it will be simply categorised as being similar to an opposition party and it will be nipped in the bud and given no room to develop, just like the opposition parties. They cannot criticise the Government's policies, as an independent organisation, because if an independent civic organisation is to criticise the Government, it is like enhancing the strength of the political party.

It is said that "money can do wonders". Indeed, money has great magical power. If a politician is overly dependent on huge donations from a certain source, his political sense may well be manoeuvred by this benefactor of his. I believe that any politician or political party should not accept any donation from foreign sources, otherwise it would subject itself to manoeuvering by the foreign power.

However, under these major premises, the Political Donations Bill has caused anxiety to ordinary citizens who wish to donate to opposition parties and indirectly blocking the donations to the opposition parties.

I must clearly state that I oppose this Bill unless this Bill is further discussed by a Select Committee. So from this Bill, we can see very clearly that the PAP Government is making use of the human weakness to maintain its one-party superiority. At elections, it uses the threat tactics on the people and then they make use of this superpower under the ISA to detain people without trial. Now, with this Political Donations Bill, it is casting a shadow on those who aspire to participate in politics and creating a psychological fear in them. So anyone who wants to support the opposition party will have to openly reveal his identity, failing which he will automatically lose his political rights.

I urge all those who want to support the opposition to stand up courageously and fight for their due citizens' political rights. Do not cause a psychological barrier to be generated just because your identities will have to be revealed when making donations to the opposition parties.