Wong Kan Seng
Singapore
“We all want a better future for our children and the future generations. Amid the debates, let us not lose sight of what we are working for – we are working for the benefit and future of Singaporeans. Not for growth targets, not for foreigners, but for Singaporeans.”
“Mrs Mildred Tan also suggested doing a longitudinal study on the impact of new citizens on Singapore. I am told that there is a periodic study on the perception of integration and rootedness of Singaporeans and PRs. A study is now ongoing too.”
“All they need to do is simply declare that they meet the residential criteria. EASING IN US ECONOMY (Impact on Singapore) 9. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Senior Minister what will be the expected impact on the Singapore economy arising from the US Federal Reserve's announcement on 3rd November 2010 of a "quantitative easing" of the US economy…”
“Well, from the data I have here, 553 registered to vote before the 2006 GE and this is the data I have but Ms Lim may be right. There may be 1,000-odd that Ms Lim had mentioned. From what I am told now, we have 1,325 Singaporean overseas who are eligible to register to vote have registered.”
“But, as I said, there are so many other possibilities that they could come in and there could also be many possibilities that we could have missed and they have entered or left Singapore. LAND SWAP AGREEMENT FOR KTM STATION AND RAILWAY LANDS 2.”
“They are also recruiting people by offering them scholarships. So, we hope more of our companies can do that. Hopefully they come here to work for a while and, if they like our place, they may want to settle down. This is a place which they can think about. POPULATION AND TALENT DIVISION 5. Assoc. Prof.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,192 lines we hold for Wong Kan Seng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 30 of 64.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. PROMOTING THE BUILDING BLOCKS FOR A GRACIOUS SOCIETY 5.28 pm”
“The truncation involves a reduction of the maximum point of the salary scale from $6,785 to $6,490. The existing Parliamentary Officer Grade IVA salary scale has also been revised. The revised structure of the Parliamentary Service is set out in paragraph 4 of the Commission's Report. The House is asked to accept and approve the recommendations of the Commission. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, noting the Report of the Commission on Parliament Staff as contained in Paper Misc. 3 of 2000, accepts the recommendations of the Commission as contained in paragraph 6 thereof and resolves in accordance with such recommendations.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That this Parliament, noting the Report of the Commission on Parliament Staff as contained in Paper Misc. 3 of 2000, accepts the recommendations of the Commission as contained in paragraph 6 thereof and resolves in accordance with such recommendations." Sir, following the announcement on 29th June 2000 in this House of the revision of salaries in the public service, a Commission consisting of the Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission and myself was set up in accordance with Article 51(6) of the Constitution of Singapore to advise on the application of the revised salaries and the payment of Performance Bonus to the staff of Parliament. The Commission has presented its Report to Parliament on 19th August 2000. In line with the announcement on the Public Sector Salary Revision in Parliament on 29th June 2000, staff in the Parliamentary Service and other posts in the Parliament Service, for example, the Interpreters and Serjeant-at-Arms, will receive a salary revision of 3.8% plus $50 and the base rate Performance Bonus (including those who are currently not receiving any Performance Bonus) will be increased by 0.5 month with effect from this year. The structure of the Parliamentary Service will also be revised. A new Upper Timescale Parliamentary Officer Grade IA has been introduced and for Parliamentary Officer Grade I, there will be two salary scales to account for the creation of the new Parliamentary Officer Grade IA. Officers who were promoted to Parliamentary Officer Grade I after January 2000 will receive the revised salary scale (Code 1697). For incumbents who were promoted before January 2000, they will continue to be on their existing salary scale (Code 1360).”
“Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. THE SPEAKERS' CORNER”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 34, line 3, to delete the word "section 21(1)" and to insert "section 20(1)". This is also a correction of a typographical error. Amendment agreed to. The Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments, read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT MOTION”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 33, line 19, to delete the word "case" and to insert "cash". This is a correction of a typographical error. Amendment agreed to.”
“There is nothing wrong for that individual to make multiple donations amounting to $10,000. But if he gives it to one organisation and that organisation would not be able in any way to report it, the donor should report it too as a counter evasion measure. But if he makes small multiple donations that amount to $10,000 to different organisations, then it does not amount to more than $10,000 for each of the organisations and, therefore, he does not need to make a declaration to the Registrar. Clauses 1 to 37 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule -”
“Sir, on a point of order. I would like to point out that Mr Jeyaretnam was given more than adequate time to speak up on the clauses. He has made full use of his time and, in fact, Mr Chairman, you have just ruled that he had exceeded his time and he was told to sit down, but he is using this device to seek clarification.”
“I think he has enough of the time. Let me finish answering Mr Low Thia Khiang. Mr Low asked why we want to have reports on donors who make multiple donations that amount to $10,000. I thought I have explained that in my statement. If an individual donates less than $10,000, there is no need for the donor to write to the Registrar to declare. If that donor donates $10,000, there is also no need for him to declare because the political association or party would have declared. But if he donates multiple sums aggregating $10,000, then we want him to declare because that is a counter evasion measure that the Registrar would want to know to keep track of non-reporting by political associations. So, it is just a purpose of counter checking.”
“Nowhere have I said in my speech just now that the promotion of democracy or political protest in Singapore by Singaporean is undesirable. Nowhere have I said that. But if a particular organisation is going to stretch its hands out and ask for a donation from a so-called "like-minded organisation" overseas to support his cause, I would think we should, and every Singaporean should, examine the motive as to why that organisation wants to give the money. The political process in Singapore is for Singaporeans to decide. It is not for foreigners to come here and help us champion our cause. If he has reasons to receive foreign money, then he should also have the motive questioned. Right now, there is no question that I am going to gazette any organisation. But if there is cause to do so, then we would do it. Mr Jeyaretnam talks about the powers of the Registrar. The powers are there just in case the Registrar is obstructed from doing his work in examining the books, he would have to go into the premises to examine the books. If such books or accounts are not made available, then he must find ways to get access to such records and there is no reason for anybody to fear. If that organisation has not done anything wrong, then that organisation should have no fear. There is a Chinese saying that says, "if he has not done anything harmful, then even a knock on the door in the middle of the night should not frighten him". But in Singapore, it is such a small place. If we do not want people to do it, do not do it because one day, he will be found out. There is also another Chinese saying, "ruo yao ren bu zhi, chu fei ji mo wei" which means if we do not want people to know, do not do it. If he thinks he has done something wrong, then he will have to account for it.”
“Ask them to give him more money. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.”
“If people give him 50 cents and he finds it too tedious, ask them to give him $5 or $50, make it a big figure, so that he does not have to keep tedious records. But actually no record is required of any anonymous donations up to $5,000.”
“Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam's memory is very short. I think we should leave it to him to do his own research and find the information for himself. I am not here to re-educate him.”
“If his party were to come into power and say we would re-join Malaysia, I think Singaporeans would have a right to decide. Therefore, we said, let us amend the Constitution to provide for a referendum should Singapore decide to surrender its sovereignty. Is this a Bill against political development? How could it be? We have got political development. But if the opposition have not progressed, that is not our fault. Singaporeans have progressed. Singaporeans are more vocal. Singaporeans have supported many organisations, set up websites, etc. And I think they have also grown in the political process. But we cannot allow any foreign organisation, any foreign power, any foreign individuals, to come and tell our organisations, Singaporeans, associations, what they should do in order to propagate their interest. That is not right.”
“I have even forgotten about the case in 1972 when the Workers' Party tried to sue one of the PAP MPs and the case went to court and failed and that led to all his troubles eventually. That has got nothing to do with the PAP. It is the courts. He believes in the court system. He took the case to court and lost. He challenged it and he still lost. How could that be our fault? Whether it was a technical reason or whatever it was, he lost. If he believes that F.A. Chua had been biased, he should have taken up the case. He said that because of this case in 1972, we amended the Constitution to make sure that we cannot surrender our sovereignty to a foreign power or foreign country without a referendum. He has forgotten that this change came about because the Workers' Party, he himself in particular, was calling for the re-merger of Singapore. All right, if he wants to do that, he must go through a referendum. Supposing it happened that the Workers' Party came into power in 1972 or 1976 ---”
“In fact, by making known the list of donors, it will discourage people from donating. They may say that in that case they would rather not be known, whether to be known to be supporting the PAP or the Workers' Party or the SPP. What for? Why all the hassles? Let us keep our money and enjoy ourselves. So it is better that we do not disclose the list but only to keep it for record purposes and use the records when necessary. Mr Jeyaretnam's long list of other points really just boils down to one thing. He thinks that this is going to stifle the Workers' Party, and the failure of the Workers' Party to get money and people is the fault of the PAP. How can this be so? He has led the party for 28 years since 1972, and maybe even before that. For 28 years what has changed in the Workers' Party? Not very much, but yet the world has moved on. It has changed a lot. What has changed in the Workers' Party? People will know that it has not changed very much. What has changed in the PAP? A lot. And that is how we have kept ourselves relevant and stayed relevant. That is why the people say, "That is the Party I want to run Singapore, and we will continue to vote you, not the party that cannot even get its acts together." If they cannot even get their acts together, how can they get Singapore together? Let us face it. So do not blame their problems on us. If they cannot attract people to join them, do not blame us. If they cannot get people to donate money to them, do not blame us either. They only have themselves to blame. His other litany of things is about digging up the background. Actually he dug up all the background himself.”
“The Member is paid $250 and $500 to employ a secretarial assistant and legislative assistant respectively. He can use that money. If the Government were to give more money to the Member to employ an administrative assistant to keep records, we will only give it to two opposition Members, one from the Workers' Party and the other from SPP, and the rest will go to the PAP Members. He will then say this is unfair because the PAP has more MPs. We will settle our own problems. He settles his and we will settle by our method. Mr Chiam is concerned that the list of donors is only made known to the PAP. That would not be the case. No member of the public will have access to this record. It is only the officials. He asked me whether the Ministers will see the list of donors. There is no need for us to do so. The purpose of this Bill is not to find out who donated to the Workers' Party, SDP or whoever, or even the PAP. It is up to them to decide who they want to receive the money from. If we know who their donors are, so what? How does that affect them? Are we going to chase after their donors? Is the PAP going to run after their donors so that they will say, "Let us have your money instead of it going to the Workers' Party?" Let us be realistic. We do not need the people who give them the money. We have other people who give us money. We give the money ourselves. Most of the money that goes into the Party for election purposes comes from the PAP MPs and Ministers. We paid for our expenses. Of course, there are also other well-wishers who help us. So be it. If others want to help the opposition, fine! Go ahead. But nobody is interested in knowing who their donors are and I do not think that we need to make known the list of donors.”
“" What will Singaporeans say? They will say, "There you are, you are not doing your job. You should know that these have been happening in other countries and yet you are slow in responding. We thought we pay you a lot of money to do a good job." So let us not fool ourselves. We do not know that such a problem will come about. Neither do we want such a problem to come about. But there is no reason why we should not have a law like that today. Because today is better than never. It is better than tomorrow. Mr Low Thia Khiang is worried about anonymous donations and now he cannot raise money because even people are afraid to give him 50 cents. That fear is really not well founded. If Singaporeans want to give him money, what is the difficulty in saying, "I am a Singaporean. This is my identity card. Please record it." What is their worry? It is a simple thing. That procedure does not apply to the Workers' Party or to the SDP only. It applies to the PAP as well. It applies to all the PAP's 83 branches. When I briefed my GPC, they said this is going to cause problems for them to keep detailed records. I said so be it, because we want this system to be established today. The Party will set up the structure, a record keeping method, to make sure that we record. If the opposition is really shorthanded, and cannot find people to help them understand the system, I have asked my officials to come up with a simple guide to help them to capture such records. We hope that can be useful to them. But it is up to them. They can keep their own records.”
“This is the first time we have a Bill and this is the first time that we have started something like that after examining all the examples of other countries, and we say, let us give it a try. It will not be cast in concrete and stone. With the experience that we have gained, and difficulties that we may experience, we will amend the Bill as time goes on. The question which two or three of our opposition Members want to know is: why have this Bill now? What is the urgency? I do not think there is any better time than having this Bill now. Consciousness has been raised on political funding, soft money, soft advertisement and all kinds of things that have happened in other countries for years. If Members remember the 1996 Presidential Election in America, it has long past for years, and now the controversy still rages on. In our newspapers the last couple of weeks since the Bill was made known, the newspapers have run many stories, and Singaporeans ought to know that there is such a problem in other countries. In Singapore's case, the PAP Government always thrives on its ability to anticipate problems. We are not saying that the problem will come straightaway tomorrow, in the next election, but we will never know. So let us have the law ready. Today is as good as any other day. If Members say, do not bring back the history of 1959 or do not talk about 1976 or 1988, these are real examples of how foreign governments, whether it is a government directed at the top or by somebody at the top, or somebody else doing the job, or a foreign intelligence organisation, like the 1976 case, or just one diplomat in an embassy, these cases happened and they are real examples. Do we need to wait for more examples before we say, "Let us do something about it.”
“" So it is the Government that has generated this interest and there is no particular reason why the Government wants to restrict the growth of these civil societies. On the other hand, should such groups or organisations come to the Government to ask for money, the question to ask is: should Government money be used for their purpose or should it be for a general purpose of all Singaporeans? We cannot, on the one hand, say, "Please, give me money." And next say, "Please, let me be independent and completely be left alone." When they receive Government money, they will be subject to Government influence in some way or other. But if they want to be totally independent, then they must depend on themselves and on people, Singaporeans, who will support their cause. Then they will be completely independent. Mr Thomas asked me to define "sponsorship" and whether dinners, research, etc. are considered as "sponsorship". Again, I really cannot explain in great detail what is and what is not considered as sponsorship. We will have to look at the whole circumstances and the context before a decision can be made, which eventually can be challenged. On anonymous donations, he asked why not limit to less than $100 and therefore has no limit of $5,000 in total. We have applied different rules according to our own circumstances. In Britain or America, they cannot have an anonymous donation of more than pound 50 or more than $50. If they can generate 100,000 donors, so be it. In Singapore, we think that $5,000 a year is pretty reasonable. If, over time, we think that that sum is not enough because the political associations' expenses have grown and so on, we will look at that.”
“For example, organisations which receive, say, funding from a UN organisation, UNDP or UNICEF, to promote a social programme to address the needs of children, are obviously the organisations in the first group that I will not consider to be organisations that are within the prohibition of foreign donations, because for these associations, they are actually doing a social programme to help children or battered wives for that matter. On the other hand, if local organisations accept foreign funds, say, from a foreign body like the Soros Foundation network to help them promote in Singapore a political programme based on what they think Singapore's society or political structure should be, we will deem them to be in the second category, that they will be a political association covered by the Bill, if these Singapore associations do accept money from such foreign sources. If Singaporeans truly want to have a political society of whatever form, whether it is the NUS Political Association, whether it is the Democratic Socialist Club, the Roundtable, Socratic Circle, or whatever, let it be supported by Singaporeans. It is only fair that whatever activities propagated by these organisations should be supported by Singaporeans, and not by foreign sources. So it is not the intention of this Bill to retard the growth of any civil society group. In fact, it is the Government that has generated this interest. The Government generated this interest by having a Singapore 21 Committee chaired by RAdm Teo Chee Hean involving a lot of Singaporeans. We say, "Come and take part. Make sure that you have an interest in Singapore, its continued prosperity and success. Therefore, do not just leave everything to the Government and have a say in things that will interest you or affect you.”
“We do not want a situation where a foreign organisation will say, "Yes, this is the cause I believe in and therefore I champion your cause for you by providing you with money." And I have explained in great detail what we consider to be politics and what we consider to be political activities. I even outlined six or seven conditions under which we will consider those to be politics and political activities, and I think they were clear enough. Of course, when it comes to an actual case, I think judgment will need to be applied and we will need to distinguish between activities by groups which want to promote a social cause for the public good, not leading to a change in the political structure, not leading to a change in the law, not leading to the way we want to do our own things, and we want to decide that for ourselves. On the other hand, there are also groups that will want to push very clearly for a political or partisan agenda to alter our political system. That is a distinction we want to make. But again, it will have to depend on the circumstances. So I cannot answer very specifically in such a situation whether we will allow or not allow. In the end, it will have to depend on the circumstances and eventually when a decision is made to gazette an organisation which is not a political party as a political association and subject to this Bill, I will make the rationale known and why we do this and this can be challenged. The association can go to the courts for a judicial review of the Minister's decision. That is a completely transparent system. But to ask me now to detail from A to Z what is covered and what is not covered, it is not possible. I cannot speculate on hypothetical situations. But I can give an example.”
“And we also make it clear that whoever give the donation can expect no favour and can expect no preference in whatever dealings they may have with the Government or with the party. They do donate and we tell them that they do it because they believe that the PAP has been running the country well and they want to support an organisation like the PAP to perpetuate the prosperity of Singapore, not for any other reason. It is not to support the PAP to favour them in their business or in their personal affairs. That is the basic rule of the PAP. Having said that, this Bill does not prohibit anyone who has an interest to donate to the political party or association, so long as he is a permissible donor. And we must have the rules such that we can ensure that the donation comes from permissible donors. On the occasion that it is not, because a Singaporean donor or a permissible source is prepared to allow himself to be used as a conduit for a foreign organisation, then he will have to take full responsibility for that and answer for the consequences. So, it is not possible, like Mr Kenneth Chen suggests, to cover all loopholes, or even Mr Goh Choon Kang's suggestion to ensure that we have no loopholes. There will be some and I think we will have to learn from the experience as we operate this Bill, which eventually becomes the law. There is a general point whether this will really affect the growth of civil society. I do not think so. Even for the civil society or any organisation that has a civic purpose, there is no reason why it should depend on foreign funding in whatever form. They must depend on themselves. They must depend on Singaporeans who believe in their cause.”
“Sir, I will try to answer as many as possible the points raised by Members. Generally, I think Members support the need for the Bill. As to why we want to prohibit foreign funding to the political parties and political associations which have an effect on the political activities and development of Singapore, we all agree that Singapore's politics is for Singaporeans, and not for others to come and interfere via any means, whether by financial means or other assistance. Because, whatever form the assistance takes, there is no question that the recipient will, in some way or other, be beholden to that foreign organisation. And I do not think any Singaporean organisation or political party will want to put itself in that position of being beholden to a foreign organisation, and I think this point is rightly pointed out by Mr Chiam. In Singapore, we actually do not need a lot of money for elections. The Parliamentary Elections Act lays down quite clearly how much each candidate can spend, ie, up to $2.50 per voter, and that is the cap. And it is not an expensive affair to run a campaign in Singapore. Unlike the case of many other countries where candidates have to spend millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, to secure even a primary candidacy, or as a candidate for, say, the American Presidential elections. In Singapore, there is no such need and therefore it is easy. The cost of entry into politics by any Singaporean who has an interest to take part in elections is easy. Secondly, for the PAP, we have taken upon ourselves to observe very strict rules about donations to the party. No money goes to the Ministers or the MPs direct. Whatever donation does not go to the individual. It goes to the party.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Housing and Development Act (Chapter 129 of the 1997 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for National Development (Mr Mah Bow Tan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING AND PYRAMID SELLING (PROHIBITION) (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.14 pm”
“How did the illegal immigrants manage to come here? As I have said, Sir, our checkpoints are very safe, but every day illegals attempt to come in either through the Woodlands or Tuas Checkpoints. They hide in lorries, modified cars with compartments, in the undercarriage, behind the seats and so on. There are all kinds of ways and means for these people to smuggle themselves in, because it is quite lucrative for the traffickers to bring illegal immigrants into Singapore. I am told that for every person they bring in, they can make between 80 - 100 ringgit. If they smuggle three each time and two runs a day, they will be quite rich. Apart from that way, the illegals also try to come in by boats. They take a speedboat and rush through our very narrow waters between Malaysia and Singapore, and in three minutes they are there before the PCG could even reach them. And that is why we have deployed more than 50 boats every day to deal with these people who come in by boats. BILLS INTRODUCED POLITICAL DONATIONS BILL "to regulate donations to political parties and political associations and to candidates and election agents in a parliamentary election or presidential election so as to prohibit foreign donations and restrict anonymous donations thereto and for matters connected therewith, and to make related amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 218 of the 1999 Revised Edition) and the Presidential Elections Act (Chapter 240A of the 1999 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“Sir, Mr Chiam has said in this House that he cannot add, and I believe him. In the Table, the first row is Immigration offenders (1) = (2) + (3). (2) means row two. (3) means row three. So row (1) = row (2) + row (3). Sir, he added them all up. But do not worry, Mr Chiam.”
“Sir, the landlord has to perform the due diligence requirement. If he cannot do it, he can ask anyone to assist him. As I said, he can ask anyone to assist him to verify, and the court will take that into account.”
“Sir, the Immigration Act does not require the reporting of an illegal immigrant by any Singaporean sighting an illegal immigrant. In general, Singaporeans cannot tell the difference just by looking at a person. They have to look at his papers, ie, passport, passes and so on before they can determine whether that person's stay here is legal or not. So the Immigration Act does not require reporting to be done. But I would suggest that they do so for their own safety, if they know of any. If they have people in the neighbourhood whom they suspect to be illegal immigrants, then they can give SIR a call or make a police report, and they will do quiet investigations. Police will not just raid the place just because somebody makes a phone call, and then the Police will be running around raiding houses. They will do quiet investigations and after they have determined the facts, they will do something about it. As for doctors, I think the doctors have their own code of practice, and it is for them to decide.”
“Sir, if he has looked at it, checked, confirmed, etc, and he makes a copy for himself, then he has performed the due diligence requirement. Eventually, if he is still taken to court and the prosecution did not believe him, then the court will have to decide based on available evidence.”
“Yes, that is one piece of paper showing that he has checked with SIR or MOM. There are two other checks. He has got to look at the person's pass, look at him, look at his passport, and compare the particulars. If he does not do that, it is not enough just to depend on that website print-out from SIR or MOM.”
“I think it cannot be done because if a work permit can be forged, an eligibility certificate will be more easily forged. So it is better that a landlord looks at the original documents, ie, passport, work passes and, if necessary, call the employer and the SIR or MOM. I think that is a safer bet for him than to create another layer of bureaucracy.”
“What Mr Singh is suggesting is that we add another layer for the landlord to check the certificate of eligibility. Already with three checks, he cannot make it. Mr Inderjit Singh: Sir, we will cut the three checks to just one check, ie, the certificate of eligibility, maybe the certificate against the passport. I think that is all that needs to be done.”
“Sir, the minimum sentence stated in the legislation is to give the court an idea of what is the minimum we expect of the sentence. That is why we have it in the legislation.”