SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Column: 2955

SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

Column: 2956

The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Introduction

Sir, this Bill amends the Societies Act to allow certain societies to be automatically registered, whilst safeguarding our national interests, security and public order. The Bill also streamlines the fines stipulated under the Societies Act.

Role of the Societies Act

The Societies Act plays a gate-keeping role in ensuring that groups which may be used for unlawful purposes, or pose a threat to public order, welfare or good order in Singapore, or which will be contrary to our national interests are not allowed to establish themselves in Singapore. Over the years, the Registrar of Societies has administered the Act with a light touch. In the last five years, only 10 out of 1,236 applications for registration were rejected. This is less than 1%. Hence, the number of registered societies has increased from 3,900 in 1988, to 5,300 in 1999, to about 5,800 currently.

The Registry of Societies (ROS) has been responsive to calls, in and out of this House, to speed up processing time. In 1999, 46.3% of approved applications were processed within two months and 72.2% within three months. Last year (2003), out of the 259 applications approved, 97% were approved within two months and 99% within three months. So, the norm has moved from three to two months. Indeed, last year, about 60% of the applications were approved within a month. So the speed of approval has improved, but we have not been satisfied.

Column: 2957

Review of the Societies Act

Hence, looking beyond expediting the application process, MHA initiated a comprehensive review of the Societies Act in December 2000, with a view of making it easier for the majority of societies which pose minimal law and order or security concerns to be registered. As the Act has not been amended since 1982, MHA also took the opportunity to review the other provisions to ensure that they remained robust and relevant.

The existing registration process treats all societies as a homogeneous group, and subjects all applications to the same level of scrutiny. Resulting from the review, MHA piloted a fast-track registration regime in January 2002. The pilot trial showed that there was scope to further differentiate and manage societies according to their character and activities. At one end of the spectrum, we have societies such as reading clubs, chess clubs, trade associations, alumni of local schools and staff sports & recreation clubs which pose minimal security concerns. At the other end, we have societies that are, for example, of a religious or racial nature which can be a cause for concern given the multi-religious and multi-ethnic nature of Singapore society. Illustrating a forward-looking approach, from a fast-track registration regime, which we were considering then, we, in fact, progressed and have now decided to adopt an automatic regime.

Automatic Registration

In doing this, MHA has taken note of the recommendation of the Remaking Singapore Committee to list down explicitly the types of societies that would require prior approval, and those not listed can then be registered without having to seek prior approval. MHA also consulted the public on the proposed automatic registration regime. An e-consultation

Column: 2958

paper was put up on the on-line feedback portal earlier this year, for a month. In addition, a Feedback Unit Session co-chaired by Mr Chandra Mohan and Mdm Ho Geok Choo was held on 29th January. Feedback received was generally supportive of the automatic registration regime and for a differentiated approach. Following the feedback received, we have finetuned and finalised the scheme.

Sir, let me go through the main provisions of this Bill now.

The automatic registration scheme is set out in clause 4 of the Bill. Clause 4 amends the Societies Act to enable a society that is not a specified society to be immediately registered on the date the Registrar receives the registration application so long as it is accompanied by payment of the prescribed fee, a copy of the proposed rules of the society and a declaration that the society's objects, purpose or activities are not those specified in the Schedule. This is a paradigm shift from the current approach. We expect more than half of the 200 or so societies applying to ROS for registration each year to benefit from this new automatic registration regime.

Societies that do not qualify for automatic registration

Clause 8 of the Bill amends the Societies Act to create a Schedule, listing down the categories of societies that will not be eligible for automatic registration. Let me explain why we should not allow these categories of societies to be automatically registered. Take the example of an ethnic or religious society. History has shown that religious and ethnic issues can potentially be divisive ones, especially in Singapore , a relatively young nation with a multi-religious and multi-racial society. We cannot afford to have individuals or groups exploit these issues without due regard to our country's fragile social fabric. Closer scrutiny of

Column: 2959

such societies is required to ensure that sufficient safeguards are in place in the societies' constitutions so that they will not carry out activities prejudicial to our national interests.

For the same reason, societies whose main purpose is to discuss any matter relating to the governance of Singapore must go through the normal registration process. This category includes political parties and political associations, as well as non-partisan political discussion groups. These organisations have an influence over the governance of Singapore and the national policies of the day. We must ensure that foreign elements do not hijack these organisations to serve a foreign agenda which is contrary to our national interests. Politics in Singapore is and must remain within the domain of Singaporeans.

Another category of such societies is the alumni of foreign educational institutions. Given their links with their alma mater, it would be prudent to ensure that they do not establish themselves solely to fund or to receive funds and promote the cause of a foreign organisation. They can also have an impact on Singapore's bilateral relations with the foreign country in question.

Societies that advocate civil or political rights are also specified in the Schedule. Such groups, which aim to promote a particular cause, can potentially give rise to law and order problems if they engage actively in pushing their agenda, without due regard for those who may not agree with their cause.

Societies that promote or provide training in pugilistic or martial arts will also not be allowed automatic registration. When I spoke in Parliament last year, in moving the repeal of the

Column: 2960

Martial Arts Instructions Act, I assured Members that existing safeguards governing martial arts associations would remain in the Societies Act. This is necessary to prevent such associations from being exploited by secret societies and other criminal gangs.

Sir, let me stress that it does not mean that the categories of societies specified in the Schedule cannot or will not be registered. Their applications for registration will be considered through the current normal process which, as I have said, in terms of timing, has now been cut down, and it is working fairly well. Based on the current very high approval rate, I expect the vast majority of these societies to be approved for registration. I should add that the list of societies in the Schedule will be reviewed regularly. Clause 7 of the Bill inserts a new section 33A to empower the Minister to amend the Schedule by notification in the Gazette .

Safeguards

In the course of gathering feedback on the proposed automatic registration regime, there were some concerns that automatic registration might become a loophole for illegal or unlawful groups to register themselves. Hence, I would like to assure the House that there will be sufficient safeguards in place. For example, a society, whether registered automatically or through the normal registration process, is required to abide by its own constitution and the prevailing laws of Singapore . If the society engages in illegal activities, it will have to face the consequences. Also, currently, section 24(1) of the Societies Act empowers the Minister to order a society to be dissolved if the society is being used for unlawful purposes or for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore; or for purposes which are incompatible with its objects or rules; or when the society has wilfully contravened

Column: 2961

its own rules or any provision of the Act or its Regulations.

Clause 6 of the Bill amends section 24(1) to empower the Minister to dissolve a society if it had secured automatic registration through false declaration or misrepresentation of its objects and activities at the point of registration. But let me assure Members that the power to dissolve a society has been invoked sparingly all these years, and only as a last resort. For example, over the past 13 years, from 1991 till the present, about 24 bogus football and sports clubs were dissolved to curb the operation of illegal billiard saloons, gaming machines and other gambling activities.

As a check on societies that are automatically registered, ROS will conduct random audits on the declarations submitted by these societies after registration. Clause 5 of the Bill empowers the Registrar of Societies to order a society to change its name or rules, taking into account the need to safeguard national interest and public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore . This power will be confined to societies that are automatically registered. ROS will also ensure that these societies do not use names which are offensive, misleading or have already been used by other societies or organisations. It will be an offence if a society does not comply with the Registrar's order to change its name or rules. However, it shall be a defence for any officer of the society to establish to

the satisfaction of the court that he has exercised due diligence, and it was for reasons beyond his control that he failed to comply with the order of the Registrar.

Review of Fines

Finally, Sir, MHA has taken the opportunity to streamline existing fines in the Act from the current six to three levels. The existing fines have not been changed since 1967 when the Societies

Column: 2962

Act was enacted. Hence, clause 8 of the Bill enhances the fines and collapses the existing six levels of fines, namely, maximum fines of $200, $500, $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 and $4,000 to three levels of fines, namely, maximum fines of $1,000, $3,000 and $5,000. There will be no changes to the imprisonment terms spelt out in the Act. As we administer the Societies Act with a light touch, these fines provisions have seldom been invoked. I expect this to remain so.

Conclusion

Sir, let me conclude. These amendments to the Societies Act will make it easier for many societies to be registered. The changes are in line with the Government's move to loosen up restrictions to encourage greater social entrepreneurship.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I welcome the amendments. But after listening to the Senior Minister of State saying that they can clear 99% of the applications within three months, I really wonder whether we need to have automatic registration of the type that he has proposed.

I think it is good also that the Ministry has followed up on suggestions made by MPs in the past that there should be a quicker mode of registration of societies. But I have a few queries about the workings of this particular new amendment. First of all, I really would like to ask how useful is the new track procedure under clause 4. I ask this because the Schedule which provides for specified societies is extremely wide. The Senior Minister of State just now said that this was following the Remaking Singapore Committee's suggestion that they should list down what should be

Column: 2963

specified as societies. But if you look at the list, they cover the whole gamut of what the Senior Minister of State referred to as social entrepreneurship. For example, if I may take just two of them. Clause 5 says, "Any society whose object, purpose or activity, whether primary or otherwise, is to discuss any matter relating to the governance of Singapore society." That alone would, I think, cover all civic societies. Then the next clause, "Any society whose object, purpose or activity, whether primary or otherwise, is to promote or discuss the use or status of any language." might cover even cultural groups discussing whether Mandarin ought to be used, and so on. So even looking at just two of the clauses, we can find that there were very few societies that would not be within the Schedule. I would like to know, out of the 6,000 that are registered, what percentage would actually in retrospect qualify for this automatic registration.

While I welcome the change for automatic registration, I doubt very much whether it is as useful as it is intended to be. And given the fact that previously, the complaint was that it took two years to register, for example, the Roundtable, now the speed of registration is much faster and approvals are much faster, I really doubt whether this amendment would have a significant effect on improving social entrepreneurship in Singapore.

Secondly, I would like to ask why the opportunity was not taken to review the discretion of the Registrar in declining to register a society. For example, the Registrar's discretion is very wide. It includes the Registrar deciding not to register a society on the basis that it is undesirable in his opinion. That sort of wide discretion should perhaps be controlled, how it is controlled and how can a society appeal for a review of the

Column: 2964

Registrar's exercise of discretion, short of going to the court of law for judicial review.

While I welcome the amendments, I think this Bill raises the question: what are we to do with societies in Singapore? Should we not look forward to the day when registration is the exception rather than the rule? Should we not look at societies with some trust rather than mistrust? I do not think societies are comprised of enemies of the State or aliens. I think there should be more confidence in accepting the formation of societies in Singapore so that we can have the flourish of ideas on how to improve Singapore society.

We should really review the approach whether we need to register societies. And we should perhaps pay more attention to the constitutional right that we all have of the freedom to association. I believe that, so long as societies are not political associations or act against the interest of the fundamental institutions of Singapore society, we should leave them to flourish. We should not control them to the extent that we are controlling them now. Because as it stands, even after these amendments, all societies still need to be registered. Otherwise, they would be regarded as unlawful. I think many Singaporeans would rather like to have societies which are more informal and which do not require them to go through all the gamut of application forms, and so on.

With those comments, Sir, I support the Bill.

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for letting me join in this discussion.

I would, firstly, like to commend the Ministry in its efforts to set up a provision for societies other than those specified in the Schedule to be registered

Column: 2965

automatically. This green lane capability, in terms of registration, is to be lauded and brings us closer to creating a more open society, which is part of the recommendations of the Remaking Singapore Committee. It endorses and entrenches the constitutional right of a citizen to get together with other like-minded individuals to form a society quickly to help make things better for society.

Having said that, I have some queries that I hope the Minister would kindly address. Firstly, like Prof. Chin Tet Yung, I too feel how the Schedule was actually drawn up. Like him, I too feel that it is a very broad spectrum and it covers almost every civil society initiative. I would like to put it to the Minister that such a Schedule goes against the very principle and spirit of the amendments made under this Bill. I would like to hear what the Minister's views are on this particular point. If the response is that certain applications to form a society have inherent problems unto themselves, would it not then be better to register them under the green lane, that is, automatically, then watch their performance and deregister them if they are found to be deviating from the original intent as to why they have got started in the first place. On the safeguards that the Senior Minister of State explained earlier, can they not kick in even for those under the green lane and therefore every society is treated the same? By providing a Schedule, such as this, it actually gives the impression that things may not have moved very far for civil society groups. A case in point is the Roundtable. They waited under the old structure for almost a year before they could be registered.

I would like to ask: if we were to bring the clock forward now, where would the Roundtable stand? Would it be the green lane? Or would it again be the slower wait-and-see approach for the Roundtable, a proven track record?

Column: 2966

Lastly, I feel that it is better to have an automatic "yes" or "no" for such societies. This wait-and-see registration might just push certain groups to register under the Companies Act as a private limited or company limited by guarantee and thus run the risk of not being monitored adequately by the same indicators as those used under the Societies Act. That could even prove to be more of a greater risk when national security of our country is concerned, as they might just not be on our radar as diligently.

It is my hope that, as we move towards greater openness, the need for the Schedule may not really be valid any longer. I am heartened that the Senior Minister of State has said that the Schedule will be reviewed. But in keeping with Prof. Chin Tet Yung's point, it is time to trust the citizenry and do the monitoring by the administrators.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, first, I want to thank both Members for speaking up in support of the Bill. They have brought up several points which are related. I will take them in turn.

First, Prof. Chin laments whether this new regime will make a difference. In fact, he compliments ROS for making improvements all these years, some of which are actually in response to the call of civil societies for a more enlightened regime. Indeed, he is right. ROS has moved and currently takes a light touch approach to administering the Act. Like I have said in my speech, this amendment represents a quantum jump because it is the beginning of a process where you automatically register. In the past, the Registrar would be your gatekeeper for all applications and, in a sense, would treat everybody as a homogenous group and subject everybody to the same scrutiny.

Now, when you are not a specified society, you are registered on the date

Column: 2967

when you submit your application you pay up, and you make a declaration that your objectives are not within those specified in the Schedule and you can start your activities straightaway. I think that will make a difference. Whether it is one or two months, the fact is that those who are raring to go can, upon making the submission, start their activities. In response to Prof. Chin, I would say this is something that many societies will look foward to. And indeed, going on the past two years' figures, about half of the societies registered over this two-year period - about 260 a year are registered, so we are talking about 520 - half of that, 260-270 would benefit from this new regime. So it does make a difference.

The second point is whether or not the Schedule is too wide. We have chosen 11 categories. These are all carefully chosen. It is not a perfect classification. Neither is it cast in stone. And that is why the Bill in fact makes provision for the Minister by Gazette to amend the Schedule. I want to assure both Members and this House that every category was carefully chosen for reason where there is a need to scrutinise the application, whether or not, for example, it is the fact that it may have possible foreign links or the fact that a society engages in topics that may be emotive, like race, language or religion, or espouses causes which, from its point of view, it passionately cares about but if too vigorously pushed can also have proponents which will have a counter point and that may present problems. But I think it is important to note that being in the Schedule does not mean that you cannot function. Basically, it means that you have an opportunity to interact with the Registrar, which is the current position. So upfront, the Registrar, when you make an application, will have an opportunity to look at your constitution and your rules. Both parties'

Column: 2968

concerns can then be discussed and, ultimately, a consensus can be captured in the constitution. I think that lends for a better regime where, instead of letting everybody go ahead, and then, like what Ms Braema Mathi says, "Oh, after that, you can observe, you can scrutinise later on, and if any society is out of line, you hit the society.", that will create even more angst and acrimony. So it is better upfront to have a good discussion and come up with a set of constitution and rules where both parties are happy and then you proceed, not forgetting that if you do not do this, if everybody is just automatically registered, as Prof. Chin argues for, societies may then start functioning and initially, on the surface they may have what may look like

legitimate purposes but, over time, these societies may do things which will harm us. I think we should not let the horses out of the stable and then start catching them back because, for certain topics, that would be very dangerous for Singapore.

So, let us take this approach of having 11 categories. We will monitor, look at them and, if need be, over time, we can review them, not forgetting, like I said, that really, we are subjecting them to the current process which Prof. Chin has praised already. The current process is working well, but we are improving on it. Even if you are on the Schedule list, you are still a beneficiary of the current process, which is working well.

Prof. Chin also asked why we did not take the opportunity to review the process by which the Registrar has discretion. I think that is how the Act is structured. In the first instance, the Registrar will have the discretion to look at applications. But his discretion is not an unfettered one, as shown by the track record. And the track record is important. That is why I have said in my main speech, look at all the indicators, our light touch approach shows that the Registrar

Column: 2969

does not take a heavy-handed approach. He bases his discretion on the Act itself. Section 4 of the Act sets out the premises upon which he can reject a society's application. And indeed, as I mentioned just now, the very small number of 10 societies rejected out of a total of almost 1,300 applications, ie, less than 1%, over a five-year period, shows that he does exercise his discretion judiciously and only based on the provisions of the Act. And very often it is a certain section in the Act that talks about the purposes, whether the purposes are unlawful or are prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order, or whether the existence of the society is contrary to national interest that is involved. In fact, since April 2000, the ROS lets the applicant know the provision under which the rejection is based, and then he can make an appeal to the Minister. And, indeed, judicial review lies from the decision of the Minister. So, the process is in place.

The third point that Prof. Chin makes, and which Ms Braema Mathi also makes, is whether or not there is a need for registration, whether or not the Societies Act has a place in modern-day Singapore, especially as we go full speed into building civil society. Sir, let me say that the Societies Act does have a place. It is because the Societies Act is able to weed out societies which may cause problems in the area of, for example, ethnic chauvinism or extremist religious tendencies or other illegal activities, such as gambling or secret society activities, that the rest of civil society can function. And that is a point we should bear in mind. It does not stifle. It, in fact, encourages and promotes civil society. And this in fact has been happening. If we look at what has been happening in Singapore over the past five to 10 years, societies have sprung up, and I have given Members the numbers. The number of registered societies has increased from 3,900 in 1988, to 5,300 in 1999, to

Column: 2970

about 5,800 currently. And not just in terms of the number of societies, but in the range of societies that has sprung up, very often fronted by good-minded, good-hearted Singaporeans over a whole variety of causes, from cats' welfare to nature society, to other topics. That is why I think civil society is working well, with this light-touch approach which is taken by the Registrar of Societies.

In short, Sir, let us take this step. It is not a perfect step but it is a first step and is definitely an improvement. And, over time, we can review it.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): May I know which are the 10 societies mentioned by the Senior Minister of State which were rejected by the Registrar, and what are the reasons for their rejection?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, there were 10 rejections over the last five-year period. Some of these were religious groups and some had foreign connections. There were a few which were communal-type groups, again with possible foreign connections. There was one group that was rejected because of possible secret society links, and one was espousing a cause which would have promoted alternative lifestyles which would have been contrary to the national interests.

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. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].

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