Charities (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Grace Fu.

4.00 pm

The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the vision of the Commissioner of Charities is to nurture a well-governed and thriving charity sector with strong public support. To achieve this, the legislation governing charities and charitable fundraising in Singapore should provide a regulatory framework that fosters a safe giving environment, where there is a high level of public trust and confidence. Yet, our framework must be balanced so as not to stifle charitable work.

Since the Act was last amended in 2010, the charity landscape has continued to evolve and develop. We have therefore reviewed the Charities Act to ensure that our regulatory regime remains relevant and effective to support our vision.

As part of the review, the Commissioner consulted charities across the various sectors, stakeholders, such as the Charity Council and our Sector Administrators, as well as the public on the proposed amendments. Dialogue sessions were held with charity representatives to explain the rationale for the amendments and understand their concerns. We are heartened by the interest shown in our proposals and the general support given for them. The Bill before the House today is the outcome of our review and consultation.

Sir, the amendments proposed in the Bill seek to better protect charities and donors through the following two areas.

First, to strengthen the governance, accountability and transparency of charities and fundraisers in Singapore, and second, to enhance the regulatory powers which the Commissioner can invoke so as to maintain a high level of public trust and confidence in the charity sector. Allow me to elaborate on the proposed key amendments.

Sir, the governing board members, as stewards of a charity, are responsible for its operations and accountable to its stakeholders. Together with the key officers and employees, they have a duty to ensure proper management and administration of a charity, including the proper use of charitable assets. Our regulatory regime should therefore ensure that charities are managed by fit and proper persons who can help maintain public trust and confidence in the sector.

The current Charities Act already provides specific grounds to disqualify unfit persons from holding key positions. For instance, a person who has been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty would be disqualified from being a trustee, governing board member or key officer of a charity. The Act also specifies the circumstances under which the Commissioner can remove a person from his position in a charity.

The Bill seeks to update and strengthen the disqualification and removal regimes in the Charities Act.

First, two new grounds for disqualification will be introduced. Presently, after the conclusion of an inquiry, the Commissioner can, with the consent of the Attorney-General, remove trustees, governing board members, officers, agents or employees of charities from the exercise of their office or employment on the ground of any misconduct or mismanagement of a charity. However, only those removed in certain specified capacities, namely trustees, governing board members or key officers, will consequentially be disqualified from assuming key positions in charities. We propose to disqualify any person who has been removed by the Commissioner pursuant to an inquiry, regardless of his position held in a charity.

Next, in this climate of concern about terrorism, the Commissioner is stepping up efforts to counter money laundering and terrorism financing in order to better protect the integrity of the charity sector and its stakeholders. The second proposed new ground for disqualification expressly provides that a person convicted of an offence involving terrorism, terrorism financing or money laundering will be disqualified.

The next amendment expands the list of capacities in which disqualified persons cannot act. In addition to the current capacities that are proscribed, the new provision will disallow a disqualified person from indirectly managing the affairs of a charity by holding a key position in another entity which is a member or governing board member of the charity. This is to ensure that the disqualified person will not participate in key decision-making fora of a charity through another entity. Given this proposed amendment, section 28 of the Act is also proposed to be amended to clarify that it is an offence for a person to act in any capacity from which he is disqualified. The amended section 28 further makes it an offence to contravene an order by the Commissioner to repay moneys received while acting in a disqualified capacity.

Allow me to move on to the proposals relating to the removal regime. First, section 25 will be amended to introduce a new ground for removal, such that the Commissioner can now remove a disqualified person who continues to act as a governing board member or key officer of a charity despite the disqualification. This enables the Commissioner to intervene should a disqualified person refuse to resign from his position in the charity following the disqualification.

Second, we propose to allow the Commissioner to declare a person as someone whom the Commissioner would have removed from his position in a charity, if the person resigns before the Commissioner can order his removal.

Currently, before the Commissioner removes a person, for example, on the ground of mismanagement, the Commissioner will first give the person at least one month's notice and an opportunity to make representations. Should the person resign during this notice period, under the existing provisions, he can no longer be removed by the Commissioner even if there are sufficient grounds to do so. Subsequently, he would be able to return to a key position in that or any other charity. With the proposed amendment, we will enable the Commissioner to, by an order, declare a person as someone whom the Commissioner would have removed if the person resigns from the charity before the Commissioner can order his removal. The order will have the same effect as if the person had not resigned and was removed by the Commissioner. This will better safeguard charities and ensure that they are managed by fit and proper persons.

While we seek to strengthen the disqualification and removal regimes, we also recognise the spirit of the Yellow Ribbon Project that encourages the rehabilitation of ex-offenders. The Bill proposes to clarify that a person ceases to be disqualified once his conviction for a relevant offence is spent under the Registration of Criminals Act or if he is granted a pardon for the offence. Similarly, going forward, it is proposed that the Commissioner will not be able to initiate a removal of a person from his position on the basis of a spent conviction or an offence for which he has been pardoned.

Sir, with the introduction of references to spent convictions in the Act, the Bill also takes the opportunity to clarify the effects of removals and disqualifications under the Act. First, disqualification will stop once the ground for disqualification ceases. A person convicted of an offence involving dishonesty will cease to be disqualified when his conviction is spent. Likewise, a person who was disqualified because he was an undischarged bankrupt will no longer be disqualified once he is discharged from bankruptcy.

On the other hand, removals, unlike disqualifications, are permanent. Sir, I assure the House that any removal by the Commissioner is a carefully deliberated decision that is undertaken with the aim of protecting a charity and its assets. The permanence of removals is therefore necessary. For example, an employee of a charity who was removed by the Commissioner because he was found responsible for mismanagement of the charity's assets would be permanently barred from returning to that charity as an employee, and from holding key positions in any charity.

Taking another example, should a board member of a charity with frequent interactions with youth be convicted of having sex with a minor and is subsequently removed by the Commissioner, he would be permanently barred from returning to that charity as a board member or a key officer. This remains the case even if the person's conviction later becomes spent. This is because the reason for the removal does not cease to be a concern even after the conviction becomes spent. The person can still serve or be employed in the charity sector in other capacities.

The Charities Act, with the proposed amendments, will provide a strong yet reasonable regulatory framework, one that seeks to ensure that our charities are managed by persons of integrity and that the interests and good reputation of our charities are protected.

Sir, our regime for the regulation of fundraising appeals for charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes, whether conducted online or offline, serves to encourage transparency and accountability of fundraisers. It should also provide effective means to address any abuse. This is to safeguard public interest and trust, so that the public can continue to support charitable causes with confidence.

Fundraisers are increasingly going online, turning to social media and crowdfunding platforms to garner support for their charitable initiatives. The reach of such online fundraising appeals can be significant, raising substantial amounts of donations. A recent example reported in the news is the case of a baby who was born with only part of her esophagus and whose parents raised S$1.2 million, largely online, to help her get specialist surgery in the US. It is heartening to see Singaporeans responding generously to these appeals. However, the reach and scale of these online appeals highlight the need for a regulatory regime that promotes transparency and accountability so as to maintain a high level of trust and integrity, including in the online giving environment.

The Bill thus proposes to amend the definition of "fundraising appeal" in the Act to clarify and reflect the current policy position that all fundraising appeals, whether big or small, online or offline, are subject to regulation.

First, this means that fundraisers are subject to basic regulatory requirements, such as the duty to provide clear and accurate information to donors as well as to manage and use donation moneys responsibly.

Second, this means that where there is misconduct in any fundraising activity, the Commissioner can act to protect donors, for example, by prohibiting or restricting that activity.

We have consulted the public and held dialogues with charity representatives on the proposed amendment and have explained our policy position. Like them, we are mindful of the need to refrain from over-regulation, which could stifle charitable efforts as well as charitable giving. I would like to assure the House that the regulatory requirements placed on fundraisers will be reasonable and fair, taking into account the nature and size of the appeals.

We will review our fundraising regulations to minimise administrative burden on small-scale and private fundraising efforts, in particular, appeals for local causes, and exempt them from some of the requirements. For example, we will not expect detailed accounts to be maintained for a small fundraising effort conducted among family and friends for a local cause.

On the other hand, charities and institutions of a public character (IPCs), who count fundraising activity as one of their core functions, will be subject to the regulatory requirements of maintaining proper accounting records and keeping fundraising expenses within the specified limits. These institutions, which enjoy tax benefits for their charity and IPC status, have a public duty to ensure high standards of accountability and good governance in managing their charitable funds.

In relation to the online giving space, I would like to share with the House that we are co-developing with the major crowdfunding platforms in Singapore an industry Code of Practice. The Code will set out recommended practices for fundraising platforms, so that they can be trusted intermediaries for donors and beneficiaries in fundraising for charitable, benevolent and philanthropic purposes.

Sir, most of our charities today file their annual reports and financial statements electronically with the Commissioner via the Charity Portal. These submissions are published online for public access. The proposed amendments to section 48 will formalise this current practice by allowing regulations to be made to mandate the electronic filing of annual submissions and applications. This is part of our efforts to enhance transparency by making information on more charities available online.

As we make this change, we will support the charities in electronic filing. Charities can tap on our voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs)-Charities Capability Fund to purchase computers. We are also working with partners to set up shared services to support smaller charities. Charities will have at least two years' notice before the mandatory electronic filing takes place.

The Bill also introduces and amends various provisions to promote compliance with our regulatory requirements and ensure consistency in the penalties prescribed. Section 18 of the Act is proposed to be amended to make it an offence if a charity, without reasonable cause, fails to preserve accounting records, financial statements and annual reports for five years. The Bill also clarifies that there does not have to be a persistent default before an offence is committed under section 18.

Currently, contravention of some of the IPC regulations result in a penalty that is lighter than that incurred by non-IPC charities. The Bill proposes to amend section 40C of the Act to allow consistency, across both IPC and non-IPC charities, in the penalty for contravention of regulations, other than for wrongful issuance of tax deduction receipts. For that, the existing financial penalty will be retained.

The Bill also proposes amendments to align the penalties for serious offences under the Act. For example, the penalties for a person acting whilst disqualified and for supplying false or misleading information to the Commissioner have been increased to meet the current levels of penalties prescribed for other offences of similar severity, such as for falsely holding out as a registered charity or IPC.

Next, on enhancing regulatory powers of the Commissioner to safeguard public trust and confidence. Allow me to move on to the next set of amendments that seek to enhance the regulatory powers of the Commissioner.

At present, after an inquiry against a charity has been instituted and that the Commissioner is satisfied that there is a need to protect the charity, he may, with the consent of the Attorney-General, suspend a person from the exercise of his office or employment with the charity. However, the suspension is for a maximum of 12 months and this has proven to be insufficient in some cases. For example, in complex cases where investigations into financial transactions over an extended period of time are required, the inquiry may take more than a year to complete. The Bill therefore seeks to protect the charities by allowing the Commissioner, with the consent of the Attorney-General, to extend the suspension beyond 12 months, up to 24 months.

Next, the Bill seeks to enable more timely intervention by the Commissioner. Section 39B of the current Act allows the Commissioner to prohibit or restrict a fundraising appeal in certain circumstances, such as when the appeal is found to be improperly administered. However, such prohibition and restriction orders can only be issued after the completion of investigations. As investigations may take some time, the donating public may be exposed to questionable fundraising activities in the interim.

The proposed amendments to section 39B will allow the Commissioner to order the suspension of a fundraising appeal for a period not exceeding two years, pending the completion of an investigation. This can be done if the Commissioner has reason to suspect, for example, that the appeal is not being properly conducted. The Bill also proposes to make it an offence if the suspension order is contravened. The suspension order is akin to a Stop Work Order while investigations are ongoing, and can be followed up with a prohibition or restriction order if irregularities are indeed found.

Lastly, in relation to the Commissioner's powers to call for documents and information, the Bill proposes to amend section 41A of the Act to clarify that the Commissioner can require a person to provide information and documents that are not only already in the possession or under the control of the person, but which come into the possession or under the control of the person at a future point in time, within a period not exceeding two years after the order is made. This would facilitate the Commissioner's work, such as when conducting ongoing monitoring of a charity under investigation, as there will not be a need to raise a new order each time new documents or information become available.

Sir, in the review of the Act, we have affirmed that the charity sector is an integral part of the Government's "Many Helping Hands" approach. Charities play an important role in our society by meeting the needs of underserved communities, providing essential services and championing causes close to our hearts. They are instrumental in building a caring and cohesive society. It is only with strong public support that the sector can thrive and continue to benefit our community. Reputation is key to the sector, and one bad apple can erode public trust and confidence in the whole sector. The amendments that we are making to the Act, are therefore part of our efforts in ensuring a charity sector that continues to enjoy the trust and support of the community.

We are committed to striking the right balance in maintaining a sound and effective regulatory regime that ensures trust and yet, facilitates the good work carried out by the sector. The enhanced powers of the Commissioner that are proposed by the Bill will not affect the vast majority of charities and fundraisers. These powers will only be used as a last resort or when there is an urgency to act for the protection of charities and donors. Checks and balances are also in place to ensure that these regulatory powers are exercised fairly.

As we enhance our legislation, we will continue to build capacity to strengthen governance across the sector. This will be through the continued partnership between the Government, charities, stakeholders and the community. Together, we will achieve our vision of a well-governed and thriving charity sector with strong public support. Sir, I move the Bill.

Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Chia Yong Yong.

4.24 pm

Ms Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, first, I would like to record my thanks to the Minister and the Commissioner, as well as the Ministry for Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) for moving the amendments. The amendments to the Act are timely. The amendments underscore the importance of upholding the integrity of charities, inter alia, management, reporting and fundraising.

Sir, integrity is more than an honest intention and more than a good heart. It entails a robust set of procedures to ensure compliance, a discipline within the organisation to comply with the procedures, a conviction ingrained in management, staff and board that we are accountable to our funders, our sponsors, our employees and, above all, our clients and their families.

Therefore, I support the Bill, particularly in the broadening of the powers of the Commissioner to protect charities and the enhancement of penalties for certain types of non-compliance. Notwithstanding, I seek a few clarifications from the Minister.

Whilst I support the amendment to section 16, I seek clarification as to why subsections 2 and 3 are sought to be amended to apply to "a registered charity or an exempt charity", as opposed to the other sections, such as sections 12 and 13, which simply apply to "charity".

In principle, I also support the proposed amendments to section 25. However, would the Minister consider making provisions for the extension of the suspension period between 24 months in complex cases, whether exercisable at the discretion of the Commissioner or upon application to court by the Commissioner?

A second clarification sought in relation to section 25 is: whether the Government had considered broadening the scope of section 25 subsection 12 beyond subsection (2)(iv), (v) and (vi), to include compliance with other orders of the Commissioner?

In relation to section 25A, in respect of which I note there is no proposal for amendment, can the Minister clarify the basis for the subsection, which provides that it does not apply to an exempt charity? The application of subsection 5 results in an anomaly in which a key officer who has been removed as such from a registered charity may also be removed as a member of the charity, but a key officer who has been removed as such from an exempt charity may remain as a member of the charity. Considering that exempt charities are universities, educational institutions, hospitals or religious bodies and so on, we would expect that exempt charities be held to equal, if not more stringent requirements.

In relation to suspension, removal or disqualification orders, would the Minister consider making express provision prohibiting acting by proxy and making it an offence for persons to act by proxies?

Finally, in relation to the proposed section 43(7), would the Minister consider providing for service under this subsection to be effected only upon the person's prior written consent?

Sir, having stated my support for the Bill, it is my hope that the next review of the Charities Act will be more comprehensive, more visionary, bolder, catalysing greater vibrancy in the charities sector, for the winds of change are upon us. Our current charities model will not hold. The socioeconomic landscape of Singapore today is beyond what our parents and grandparents envisaged when Singapore became independent, and the future landscape will be beyond what our current charity models can hold.

A rapidly greying population, additional touchpoints and enhanced medical expertise in early intervention, diagnosis and treatment, lifestyle challenges, increased stress points in familial and communal relationships, greater financial uncertainties – there will be an increasing number of people requiring support with more complex needs and more interwoven issues. The demands will be real and, in some cases, loud.

The challenges facing us today are daunting: more clients to be served, more complex needs, more complex issues, more compliance requirements, higher public expectations, higher operating costs, limited revenue, limited technology capabilities, limited manpower and limited funds. In four simple words: more needs, less resources.

I surmise that our future challenges would, in essence, be similar but accentuated and, possibly, with a different complexion. How shall we overcome these challenges? We need to innovate. We need to change our charity mindset. We need to change our charity models before it is too late.

Whilst I do not have the solution, I have a few suggestions.

First and foremost, we need to professionalise the sector. Although the role of volunteers remains integral to the social service sector, the Singaporean society has developed beyond the early days when charities could be run solely by volunteers. The journey of "professionalisation" will be different for every organisation but it must, in every case, begin and it must never end.

Competent, compassionate and committed professionals are key to the welfare of our clients. It is easy to relate this statement immediately to the frontline professionals providing direct services to the clients, such as therapists, social workers, counsellors, teachers, job coaches, medical and allied health workers, and so on.

The truth is, behind them are quiet troops working to ensure that the organisation functions efficiently, meets compliance requirements and governance standards. Quiet troops cleaning the premises, raising funds, conducting public education, engaging community partners and supporting the frontline professionals. Our back-end supporters, they are a critical part of the team, without whom services to our clients will suffer to the ultimate detriment of our clients.

It is in the interests of our clients that we attract, retain and develop our professionals and our employees. To do so, we must treat them fairly, and I refer specifically to remuneration. This is an issue also recognised by the Government and the National Council of Social Services (NCSS). But this is a difficult issue for some members of the public.

Those who work in the charity sector, they too have families, they too have aspirations to provide for their families. Please consider their equity in this matter. It is not reasonable or fair to expect those who serve in the charities sector to take a pay cut relative to their peers. To the public, I request that before we next argue that every cent of all donations must go to the beneficiaries, take a look at our own little child, and ask if Mommy or Daddy should take a pay cut for no reason other than that Mommy or Daddy works in the charities sector. We need good people in the sector and we need to pay them well.

Secondly, we need to tap on the readiness, expertise and skills of our volunteers. They are the ones who started our charities. They are still with us today. They bring with them passion, compassion and skills to the organisation that they serve. Let us be innovative and creative in the way we work with our volunteers. They can supplement our manpower without an increase in our Expenditure on Manpower (EOM). They can provide expertise outside that of our organisation's own professionals. They can inspire our professionals. Give volunteers opportunities to contribute meaningfully, give them a sense of pride as they serve.

Thirdly, collaboration within the sector. According to the 2016 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Charities, there were 2,247 registered charities in 2016, of which only 653 are IPCs. In 2015, 46.2% of the registered charities had annual receipts of less than $250,000. So, almost half of all charities are small charities.

Setting up charities, however small, must continue to be encouraged. This is a good reflection of a healthy, spontaneously caring society, one that is willing to give. A small charity is cosy, warm, agile and more responsive to the needs of its clients. Understandably, however, small charities may have limited resources.

Looking at the numbers, I cannot help but wonder if we could collaborate and what greater impact could be achieved if we collaborated for the benefit of their clients. Collaboration requires us to be vulnerable, for we share our strengths with others. But it will strengthen us as a whole. Collaborate we must, for our clients and, indeed, for the sake of our own organisation. Let us work together towards cohesion in the midst of our diversity.

Fourthly, adopt low tolerance towards low standards. Our clients deserve no less. They and their loved ones have put their well-being in our hands. They trust us to make the change for them.

Our employees deserve no less. There is pride and dignity in their work. We insult them if we expect less of them than we do non-charity employers. They deserve challenges, opportunities and support to grow, to flourish, to accomplish and to serve. Lower tolerance for lower service standards.

Our funders and sponsors deserve no less. They have shared their resources with us. They have believed in our cause. They are walking the journey with our clients and us. Imposing high standards on ourselves is our way of showing our respect to them.

Singapore deserves no less. The community and the Government have rallied around those who need support. We, the charities, should be another pillar of support. We must not continue to be a sector dependent on support.

This brings me to my fifth point: the sustainability of VWOs. I wish to emphasise that this point is limited to the context of VWOs. By a conventional approach, we continue to look within ourselves to streamline work processes, better deploy our personnel, increase productivity and, hopefully, reduce reliance on donations. This conventional approach, while necessary, is not sufficient to see us into the future. Charities are defined as not-for-profit organisations. Must it always be so?

The current charities model relies heavily on Government funding and donations. A very small proportion of the revenue is derived from very low fees or very low revenue from sheltered enterprises, and most sheltered enterprises are loss-making.

The increase in Government funding and donations over the years cannot and will not be able to match the growing rate of needs. Think on this – even the best managed organisation can potentially fall into unsustainable deficit. Can we take that risk? If we fall into an unsustainable deficit, only two things can happen: a bailout because we cannot afford to fail; and that would entail funds from the public, more likely through Government rescue, or a shutdown resulting in a displacement of clients, loss of employment and disruption in the sector.

How much of a risk can we stomach? Here, I submit it is time to change the charities model. Whilst Government funding and donations remain desirable, they should no longer be relied upon to form a significant portion of our receipts.

I have a vision of a VWO that is firmly rooted to its vision, committed to serve all clients, regardless of status and wealth but it also engages in revenue generation with revenue generated being used to execute our mission and our vision. It practices price cross subsidies. Not a new concept, but it is using fees from those who can afford to subsidise fees of those who cannot. The means testing criteria and methodology is updated to align with this key model, leveraging on its competencies. It runs additional programmes for profit generation. It goes regional, it exercises prudence in undertaking appropriate risk management assessment, takes actions to hedge against reasonably anticipated risks.

All throughout, it remains true to its commitment to serve its clients. This is my vision for a future VWO.

If we succeed, we reduce our reliance on public funds. If we fail, we go back to reliance on public funds. But we need the support and understanding of the public that profits are generated for charitable purposes. We need the support of the Government not to remove our IPC status or compromise our charitable status on that count. I trust we can work out a feasible model with sufficient safeguards and sufficient latitude for enterprise.

Such a model could be seeded by donations or social impact bonds. We can consider social impact bonds. It is new to us but we can work on that. But it is not a model that must be sustained only by donations.

Sir, we must not run this model like a conventional social enterprise. If we do not operate more profits, we are doomed to fail. I am arguing, submitting for the need to build a model that is financially sustainable to take us into the future. A model that requires us to rethink and re-examine the requirement for charities to be not-for-profit.

Sixth, ownership of our destinies. It is difficult for us to live with little. Compound that difficulty with little or no education, a disability or more, illnesses, failing marriages, single parenthood, difficult children, ailing parents, estranged relations, difficult employment situations and difficult community situations. Is it surprising that many of us spiral downwards, physically, emotionally, spiritually and financially?

We need help. The Government and the charities, rightly, must step in to help. Intervention must be timely and decisive. The support must be relevant, effective and empowering.

Such intervention and support can, at best, only solve an immediate problem. We must, in the long run, empower and encourage our people to take ownership of their lives so that they can break out of the vicious charity cycle and, in turn, reach out to support others. Instead of scurrying for additional resources to support an increasing number of people, we build a strong network within this community to support each other, more than what money can buy.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is timely to consider renaming ourselves. From a relational perspective, "charity" or "welfare" connotes the dispensation of help from one to the other. It creates a difference in status and widens the social gap. It accentuates the chasm in mobility, socially, physically, economically and politically. It underscores the vulnerability of the person. It is liable to create a sense of low self-worth and helplessness in the other party.

The term "voluntary" masks the need for professionalism in service delivery and in the sector. There is, indeed, growing sentiment on the ground to do away with the "VWO" label. This conversation brought to fore by NCSS in 2016 should continue. What we call ourselves shape what we think of ourselves and shapes our aspirations. A new name, a new future.

In conclusion, Sir, the winds of change are upon us. It is not enough to trim our sails. It is time to change our vessels. I request the Government, our stakeholders and sponsors and members of the public to support us.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.

4.43 pm

Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is difficult to follow after such a passionate speech, but I shall attempt to do so.

Mr Deputy Speaker, every charity claims to do good work but not all charities are good charities. Some are mismanaged and fail to deliver what they promised to their clients and their donors.

How would you define a charity as a good one? Good governance and management, competence and transparency in the way it handles its operations and in the way it disburses its funds to its clients and serves the community.

I therefore welcome and support the amendments to this Bill. However, I have a few clarifications which I hope the Minister could clarify. First, the objectives of the proposed amendments are rather broad-based, that is, (a) to better protect charities and donors by strengthening the governance, accountability and transparency of charities and fundraisers and (b) enhancing the statutory powers of the Commissioner of Charities to maintain public trust and confidence.

Charities generally work for the good of the society, and they work together with State institutions to ensure that funds are channelled to the right cause or beneficiaries. Without charities − good charities − our society would be poorer.

As Singapore and Singaporeans become more affluent, the culture of paying it forward and giving back to society is gaining greater traction. It is heartening, therefore, to note that fellow Singaporeans are stepping up to help those who have fallen through the cracks and those who are in dire need.

Media reports of Singaporeans coming forward to help and assist, both in Singapore and overseas, is heartwarming and it could take many different forms. There was a recent newspaper report of a senior citizen who was sponsored on a trip to Paris simply for him to see the Eiffel Tower by a very generous but anonymous donor. He came back realising, however, that his own plywood version of the Eiffel Tower that he had spent many months making was, in fact, structurally incorrect. Amusing though the story may be, it highlights the fact that many Singaporeans are willing to give to different needs and different wants. They also do not want to be made known that they are the donors. This, in my view, is perhaps the mark of an altruistic donor.

But it can also lead to abuse by unscrupulous canvassers of donations and the recipients themselves. Perhaps, even worse, the situation may be worse if the person or persons in charge of collecting and disbursing funds is/are caught with their hands in the till!

As an example, many of us in this House, perhaps, have worked with an organisation called Project Awareness, a social initiative for the needy, and they came under the spotlight about four years ago. At that time, its project coordinator, an undischarged bankrupt, had his bank number listed as a repository for donations. Rightfully so, the Commissioner of Charities stepped in at the right moment and made sure that Project Awareness set their house in order, and issued an order to stop them from canvassing for funds while they were rectifying their internal structures. Today, Project Awareness continues to do good work and has a professional team managing their funds. It is, therefore, timely that we ensure that our charities and fundraising efforts are well run, and with their stakeholders exercising and executing their fiduciary duties as per the rules and regulations.

I welcome the amendments, which have been tweaked to prevent person or persons of dubious standing and with integrity issues from holding key positions or indirectly managing the affairs of another charity-linked entity. In this respect, and in view of the global security climate, charities and persons associated with them who are convicted of terrorism or of its financing and/or money laundering, will be disqualified from positions of authority.

However, I would be grateful if the Minister could share with the House if there have been such cases and how many have come under the Ministry's view? How much has been collected by these so-called charities? I am asking this because many Singaporeans may have contributed to such charities or initiatives unwittingly, borne out of emotion and parochialism. Those preying on the naivete of Singaporeans who come forward to share what they have, should be taken to task. Trust should not be penalised.

Fundraising appeals are evolving as quickly as the social landscape. On 31 December, The Sunday Times reported that crowdfunding sites will be issued with a code of practice, and this the Minister had mentioned earlier. But I seek clarification on when, which date this will be specifically issued, and how much force it would have under the law to regulate these sites. By doing so, it will ensure transparency and accountability because much-needed social values when soliciting funds from the public must be upheld.

It will also be made incumbent upon recipients to declare that they are not receiving state funds to alleviate their plight under the new guidelines. A recipient who is getting crowdfunding support in addition to state support may deprive another more deserving client from obtaining funds. That is where accountability and verification of facts come in handy.

The Commissioner of Charities, Dr Ang Hak Seng, had stated very clearly, "If you declared that you did not get Government aid but you did, it is a misrepresentation. You did not tell people the whole picture when you asked for donations. If your need is fake, you bet I will look into the matter." By according the Commissioner of Charities more power, misconduct will and can be prevented, and the people's trust and faith in their fellow Singaporeans will be preserved, and the willingness to share and give more will become more widespread and the Singapore society, in general, will become all the more richer. Thank you very much and I support the amendments.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

4.50 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare my interest as a board member of the charity, the WP Community Fund. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the proposed amendments relating to the disqualifications and removal of persons involved in charities. I have some concerns regarding the changes to the definitions and coverage of key officer and fundraising appeal, which are important.

First, on the definition of key officer. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, regarding the proposed expansion in the definition of key officer, I would like to ask the Minister whether all members of the governing board of a charity will be considered as key officers. I am concerned that the onerous liability imposed by the amendments will discourage people who are wanting to serve in charities, especially smaller charities where management resources may be limited, and that, in turn, puts pressure on people wanting to serve. How will the Ministry allay such fears and encourage more volunteers to step up and serve in charities, both big and small?

I next move on to fundraising appeal. Mr Deputy Speaker, I go on to the change in the definition and limits on fundraising appeal in section 39. Under the amendment Bill, the listing of definition of fundraising appeal to members of the public will be deleted and replaced by a new set of definition. It seems to me that the existing scope of fundraising appeal to members of the public will now be expanded quite considerably, beyond the members of the public. In the explanation note to the Bill, the Ministry cited a new example of an appeal by an unincorporated association to its members. The existing law applies to an appeal to members of the public and does not cover private appeal or donations. However, the explanation note in the Bill stops there, without any further elaboration. It does not elaborate adequately on its expanded coverage.

I have some concerns with this change of definition and coverage of fundraising appeal, especially the extent of its scope of coverage. It appears that the coverage may now extend to unsolicited donations, private donations or fundraising in schools, associations and religious organisations.

First, unsolicited donations – the Ministry's comments to public feedback during the public consultation process. The Ministry also stated that this can now include unsolicited donations and appeals to grant-making philanthropic organisations. The explanation note to the Bill does not, however, confirm this or say anything about it. Unsolicited donations, as its name suggests, are donations made purely voluntarily and without any initiative or action on the part of the charity. It is therefore extremely odd to include such donations as part of fundraising appeals.

I would like to ask the Minister why there is a need now to include such a new category into the definition such that its coverage actually exceeds its literal meaning. Is there any particular recent incident which caused the Ministry to think that the expanded coverage is absolutely necessary? If so, will the Minister share with the House some of the details of the incident and how they led the Ministry to propose these changes?

My Deputy Speaker, I would also like to know from the Minister what changes the Ministry will be making to the fundraising regulations, which will apply specifically to unsolicited donations.

Next, grant-making philanthropic organisations. As regards to grant-making philanthropic organisations, may I clarify with the Minister how the amendment affects them and whether we are talking about such organisations making appeals for donations to fund the grants or assistance they render to members of the public?

Next, private fundraising within schools, associations and religious organisations. The Ministry stated in their comments to public consultation feedback that they intended for fundraising to include private fundraising activities within schools, associations and religious organisations. So, it seems that besides grant-making philanthropic organisations, the coverage will be extended to other non-charity fundraisers. The Ministries said that it is important for the Commissioner to be able to stop improper fundraising.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not doubt that such new regulations may be able to enable the Commissioner to be in a better position to stop improper fundraising. However, I am concerned that this may also discourage many sincere and well-meaning Singaporeans in their different organisations from raising funds for very good reasons, not to mention the resulting bureaucratic hooks that will be imposed on non-charity fundraisers. Will the Minister also clarify whether this new definition of fundraising appeal and the fundraising appeal regulations to be amended will apply to all types of fundraising by schools, associations and religious organisations, or whether it will cover only a certain limited mode of fundraising? For example, will it apply to religious organisations raising funds by auctions, for example, as we often see during temple or seventh-month dinners?

Next, small fundraising efforts. The Ministry stated in their comments to public feedback during consultation that the Ministry would be reviewing fundraising regulations to make sure that the requirements will not apply to small fundraising efforts. I am not sure if I heard the Minister correctly in her speech just now. May I ask the Minister to elaborate a bit more on the limits of small fundraising efforts, and how small fundraising efforts apply to fundraising in schools, associations and religious organisations, whether they be mosques, churches or temple organisations?

On crowdfunding regime, given the new expanded definition of fundraising appeal, I would also like to ask the Minister to confirm whether the new regulation, the new regime, also applies to online crowdfunding. There are amazing Singaporeans who raise funds and gather volunteers online to carry out acts of charity and kindness, such as providing meal vouchers, food, daily necessities or supermarket vouchers to elderly folks or households who may be struggling financially. I read from press reports that a code of practice for crowdfunding platform will be launched this month by the Commissioner of Charities. But it seems that it will not be mandatory. I do hope that however well-meaning this code may be, the code or any intended regulation will not stifle or discourage Singaporeans from continuing their acts of charity through crowdfunding.

On to my conclusion on the fundraising appeal point. It appears to me that significant amendments will need to be made to the current subsidiary legislations on fundraising regulations to cover the expanded scope of fundraising appeal. I think we should know now, if not later, that sufficient details about what the impending regulatory changes are. I would have preferred that this Bill would have shed more light on these details or the explanatory note in the Bill. The House should, in fact, assess this Bill with the changes the Ministry intends to make in the subsidiary legislations to know what is the ultimate package that the public can expect. Overall, without the benefit of looking at the fine print changes in the fundraising regulations, I am concerned whether the change in the definition of the coverage of fundraising appeal will make it too onerous for charities, especially smaller charities with limited resources or volunteers in these charities, as well as non-charity fundraisers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would also like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister for her view on the continuing relevance of the rationale of the 80:20 ratio for persons wishing to conduct fundraising appeals for foreign charitable purposes where 80% of the funds raised must go to a charitable purpose in Singapore. How does the Government see that such a ratio will continue to benefit charities or any organisation raising funds for a foreign charitable cause? How does the Government weigh that against the benefit of our locally-based charity helping to raise funds for a worthy foreign charitable cause? I am aware that there are exceptions to this rule, but for those who are not excluded from the rule application, is it time to review this requirement or just the current ratio?

My Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, I agree that it is good to encourage good governance among our charities, in our fundraising efforts, for example. At the time, I believe that we should also be mindful that requirements are not too impractical or onerous that they create additional or unnecessary burdens on our charities, their staff and volunteers as well as non-charities and well-meaning Singaporeans.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms K Thanaletchimi.

4.59 pm

Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. The amendments will bring about stronger regulation of charities in order to gain better public trust and confidence. The requirement for accountability would help to ensure that all fundraising activities are subjected to thorough scrutiny and abuses as well as exploitations are avoided.

Sir, though I support the Bill, I would like to seek the following clarifications.

Is there any way to make the usage of the funds more transparent, as the Minister has said it will be regulated, especially for Institutions of Public Character (IPCs)? How can we encourage donations among Singaporeans for a more regulated cause as compared to crowdfunding which is via Internet in an uncontrolled form? For charitable organisations, is there crowdfunding ethics developed for greater transparencies and improved public trust that the funds raised are put to good use and for the intended purpose?

Earlier, Minister had shared there is going to be a Code of Practice on crowdfunding. I welcome this and also wish to know when this will be implemented.

With reference to clause 8(c) section 25(4)(4A) and clause 9(9) section 28, have there been previous cases or incidents where disqualified persons still remained in key positions and have there been any adverse impact or misuse of donations? If so, how have these been managed? It is natural for public to be disappointed and alarmed to hear that such disqualified persons still remain in those key positions or continued to assume key positions in one or more charities without being removed from the position or barred from being in one. And I welcome the changes in this Bill.

In clause 9 section 27(4A), it is laudable that our society is gradually being receptive, inclusive and embracing ex-offenders by giving them second chances, in support of the Yellow Ribbon Project initiatives. However, will there be any exceptional provision where such persons will be barred or disqualified forever, even if their charges are spent?

Section 9(27)(1A)(II) is relating to anti-terrorism. There have been some worrying perceptions on the ground about charities acting as a conduit for money laundering and terrorism, and this may be unfounded. Perhaps, one should take note so as to not overly mention religious charity groups in its publicity, as opposed to other charity groups.

In conclusion, on the whole, this timely change to the Charities Act is a move in the right direction, and I fully support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

5.02 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill, which serves to strengthen the governance, accountability and transparency of charities and fundraisers as well as broaden the Commissioner of Charities' (COC) statutory powers to maintain a high level of public trust in the charity sector. However, I would like to seek some clarifications on the Bill.

First, I would like seek clarification on the definition of a "fundraising appeal". With the increasing popularity of online donations, are online crowdsourcing appeals that leverage social media or other online platforms considered as fundraising appeals as defined in the Act? If so, how does the Government regulate such online appeals and ensure that the monies donated do end up helping the intended beneficiaries?

The Charity Council chairman, Mr Gerard Ee, very aptly pointed out in a news article in August 2017 that there are "practical difficulties" for the COC to read through every post online to suss out suspicious campaigns, making it difficult to uncover groups that misuse donations.

Therefore, I would like to ask the Ministry if there were any past cases where the COC had successfully taken action to stop suspicious online campaigns. Are there statistics on how many of such online fundraising campaigns turned out to be misrepresentations or half-truths? Are donors able to get their money back if the cause that they had donated to turned out to be misleading or, worse still, untrue? Would the COC consider establishing a whistleblowing channel for the public to report possible suspicious online campaigns on a timely basis?

Next, I would like to touch on the proposed mandatory electronic filing of annual submissions and other regulatory submissions by charities. While I understand that most charities are already filing their annual submissions electronically via the Charity Portal, I would like to ask how many charities have yet to embrace e-filing. Are there any plans to assist these charities in e-filing before the mandate kicks in?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am in favour of the proposed amendments in the Bill, which give the COC enhanced statutory powers. However, I am concerned about the impact on the charity as a whole, and more importantly, its beneficiaries if the charity is under investigation due to a handful of rouge individuals. Under the proposed amendments, the COC would be allowed to suspend any fundraising appeals if there is reason to suspect that the appeal is not conducted properly. Does such a clause target the entire charity, causing the organisation to freeze its operations whilst investigations are ongoing? Or will the COC be able to isolate the rogue individuals involved in the suspicious fundraising appeal and suspend them from participating in the charity while they are being investigated? The latter scenario would enable charities to continue to function if there so happens to be a bad apple in the barrel.

In closing, I would like to say that, with the expanding popularity of online fundraising appeals, it is timely for us to review the Charities Act to safeguard the public's trust in the charity sector. While the recent World Giving Index showed that Singaporeans are caring and generous, the sector will need to be well regulated to ensure that we Singaporeans do not and should not grow disillusioned with giving. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

5.06 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, the amendments to raise the requirements for accountability and transparency for charities is timely. No one will dispute the need to disqualify persons with convictions for offences involving fraud and deception.

However, I hope the Ministry would take a firmer stance on what I would call "soft deceptions", that is, efforts to paint misleading pictures of persons or families in distress by charities or social organisations so as to attract more funding. More often than not, whatever information that is not shared in these appeals are actually the vital information. Very one-sided stories about the potential recipients are painted. Potential donors are given the impression that Government agencies and existing help groups are not reaching out to assist such families, which may not be the case.

This should not be taken lightly for a few reasons. First, given the limited amount of resources available, such practices end up diverting the necessary funds and resources from truly needy parties. Second, deliberately or not, they cast doubt on the work and integrity of our Government help agencies and have the potential to undermine them. When people do not have faith in our national help network, they will hesitate to approach them for help. This is clearly undesirable, as any delay could push families in distress into disastrous predicaments.

Social service organisations are an important and integral part of our help system but they must be on the same page as the Government agencies doing similar work. We must require and enable them to perform the necessary background checks on those they desire to assist.

The code of practice for crowdfunding platforms, which will be launched soon, will require such websites to verify the information provided by potential recipients. Very recently, a homeless man in the United Kingdom was hailed as a hero in the aftermath of the Manchester suicide bomb attack and well-wishers raised £52,000 for him on a popular crowdfunding website. It was later revealed that he was a thief who stole from the victims, and the full amount of donations were to be refunded to the donors. If these websites were to be able to verify the information, the above may not have happened.

We should consider making the central databases at MSF and Community Development Councils (CDCs) available to approved and qualified personnel at registered charities. We need better coordination, exchange and sharing of information between both Government and non-Government help entities. However, what about such sites, especially if they are based overseas?

In addition, we should implement stricter criteria for the use of names and photos in connection with fundraising. There should be clearer regulations for how identities and photos can be used in appeals and publicity materials. It is common to see charities using photographs of celebrities or even politicians to boost support for their work. However, support for a particular event cannot be implied as support for fundraising efforts of a charity.

Next, to strengthen the governance of our charities and fundraisers, the Commissioner of Charities should be provided with more powers to assist with the running of a charity in distress, particularly when key personnel have been suspended or removed, or when they are in the midst of internal tussles.

During such crises and power struggles, the operations of the organisation suffers and, expectedly, when things become public, donations will drop. These organisations serve important functions, benefiting many people through the disbursement of rations, healthcare, free meals, bursaries, milk powder, money and so on.

We should have a framework and the resources to help charities experiencing temporary problems to at least continue some of their basic operations so that the people receiving help will not experience any disruptions. There should be time limits imposed on when certain impasse must be resolved, beyond which the Government is allowed to step in. For better governance, the roles and responsibilities of office bearers or key personnel should be clearly defined so that there are curbs and limits on potential abuses.

Lastly, I request for greater control over phishing appeals for donations on websites which can be accessed from Singapore. Technology, such as data analytics and tools to detect how long a user's eye dwells upon certain areas of a website, is being used to help websites push certain advertisements, including donation appeals, to social media users. What measures does the Government have to reduce the abuse of such technologies which may prey on the goodwill of Singaporeans? I conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.

5.12 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Charities (Amendment) Bill. I declare that I sit on the board of two large-sized charities serving in the capacity of a volunteer. The CDC of which I am Mayor is also classified as an IPC governed by the Charities Act.

The charity landscape. There are almost 2,300 registered charities in Singapore in 2016. Registered charities are exempted from paying income taxes and property taxes pertaining to properties used for that charity.

The charity landscape is not homogeneous. Charities come in various shapes and sizes. Out of the registered charities in Singapore, about half or more than 1,000 are religious organisations, such as churches and temples. One in five, about 18%, support social and welfare causes and others in health, healthcare, education, sports, animal welfare and others.

Let me give us a sense of the size of the charity sector. The overall annual receipt, that is, Government grants, donations and fees of the charity sector, is $16.4 billion. Out of this, $2.7 billion are donations by the public. This $2.7 billion donation pie is larger than the size of the current budget of MSF, which I know is about $2.5 billion.

The importance of the charity sector cannot be understated. Many of them play a key role in our society. Some of them partner the Government in providing essential services from education to health to social assistance. Some fill the gaps where public goods are lacking. The more organised and larger religious groups fill the spiritual needs of the lives of citizens, command influences over their congregations and play a role in religious harmony in a multiracial, multireligious society, such as ours.

There are several key trends that I have observed in the Singapore society that calls for higher involvement of and greater attention to the charity landscape. These key trends include: (a) a rapidly ageing population resulting in higher demands for healthcare and other services, and fears of retirement inadequacy; (b) the breaking down of the traditional assumption by both children and parents that question if family should be the first port of call when needs arise in a family; (c) the rise in non-traditional family make-ups, such as transnational family members, single parents either widowed, divorced or unwed; (d) the rise in mental health issues; (e) rise in technology and the prevalence of social media as a way of life, therefore online appeals and cashless transactions are some examples; (f) higher societal expectations as a result of a better educated and vocal population; and (g) the rise of religiousity, religious fundamentalism and risk of terrorism in a Singapore that is home to at least 10 religions.

Out of these societal shifts in Singapore arise new causes and areas of passion for which new charities support. There is also a notable rise in the number of large-sized charities with more than $10 million income and a rapid rise of the number of new charities seeking registration, both as charities and as IPCs. Even traditional philanthropists have chosen to register their own charities to tap on public funding and tax-exempt benefits to further their own pet causes.

Along with the rise in the number of charities are also high profile controversial cases, starting from the 2005 National Kidney Foundation (NKF) saga, Ren Ci and then the City Harvest Church and, recently, the Bone Marrow Donor Programme. This has given rise to public concern and higher scrutiny by the charity watchdogs and most likely contributed also to the review of the Charities (Amendment) Bill today.

Four focus areas. Now, after studying the provisions in the Bill, I would like to raise four areas for the Ministry to consider. One, an Industry Transformation Map; two, on enforcement; three, on the protection of those who acted in good faith; and fourth, the cost of governance.

First, on Industry Transformation Map (ITM). Sir, the rapid changes in Singapore's society place a greater onus on the Office of the Commissioner of Charity (COC) and its partners to beware of "conducting business as usual". In particular, I refer to the COC's aspiration to be a "proactive charity advisory" as stated in its Annual Report. So, more than tweaking the Charities Act, the charity "industry" needs a better landscape study and I think an ITM is in order, much like what the Future Economy committees are doing to keep up with the times.

In developing the ITM, we need a better differentiation of charities. The charities landscape is too diverse to segment the players based on the size of their budgets, which is the current way by which the Charities Act is implemented through the Code of Governance. Charities should be differentiated and treated, even nurtured, according to the different nature, priority, strengths and pitfalls in the different sectors in the charity landscape. Some charities, such as the step-down community hospitals and special schools, were set up to respond to the call of the Government to meet the needs of target beneficiaries. Surely, the governance of and support of such healthcare and social charities which are developed to complement Government's efforts should be different from those, say, in the religious sector or charities which are just private endeavours.

A more empathic and nurturing hand and touch ought to be provided to those who are the Government's partners, for example, in healthcare, education and other social challenges. It is too limiting to police these partners through stringent codes of governance only. Efforts ought to be made to help future-proof them and ensure their skills and competencies are updated to survive or even thrive in a society that is affected by technological and other social disruptions.

The current code of governance applied to all charities according to the tier in which the size of their budgets fall smacks of, to me, a bit simplistic cookie cutter perspective of charities and does not take into account the impact and contribution of different charities to society. So, there ought to be a better differentiation of charities, and more should be done for those who are the Government's partners in service delivery in the social landscape especially.

Secondly, an ITM, if developed, should also provide better clarity and direction. As a "proactive charity advisory", the aspiration of the COC and its partners should also provide greater clarity and direction on the different sectors in the charity landscape. There ought to be published mini-blueprints of the state of the union in each sector's landscape, strengths, the concerns, areas of needs and strategies to plug any gaps that the Government has not or will not step in. Potential charities can then be advised by the COC and its partners or even incentivise to direct and deploy resources to where the needs might be.

I can think of emerging and critical needs, such as home-based healthcare services for the elderly, transnational family challenges, services for adults with disabilities and coordination of overlapping services in elderly support, and other areas of needs that I see are less than met. I can also think of instances by which the COC and its partners can more effectively advise on areas where there are already duplicate or overlapping services to scale down fundraising appeals.

An ITM for the sector should also support the diversity of income generation. A "proactive charity advisory" should not only look at policing the authenticity of fundraising appeals. Effective charities have long been encouraged to be more self-reliant and diversify their income streams so that they do not become over-reliant on only donation appeals. Where they can, charities should develop and learn to develop relevant services that are needed by their beneficiaries and generate other income streams. This may come in the form of social enterprises or the trading arms of the charities.

Hence, although policing of fundraising appeals is important in order to retain public trust in charities, future reviews of the Charities Act should look at how the COC might support, for example, new developments like social enterprises or other forms of income streams in the charities.

I would like to touch next on the enforcement of the Charities Act. It is well and good to set up a strict regime of governance for the charities. But it is another altogether to effectively enforce it. It is not uncommon to hear of suspect fundraisers in public places touting for donations. It is also not uncommon to sight charities who were already put on, say, restrictive orders by the COC to still carry on its activities per normal. In one of the shops selling religious artefacts in my constituency at Waterloo Mall, I have had complaints by constituents about a business owner collecting donations for themselves in a box next to legitimate donation boxes for the Community Chest.

As online fundraising appeals become more common, how does the COC plan to verify the authenticity of the appeals and how donations are disbursed? Sir, in order for the Charities Act to have teeth and in the midst of even more charity applications and fundraising appeals, ways must be found by which the COC, the Sector Administrators and other partners can effectively communicate to the public and work with the public to enforce the provisions of the Act.

Next, on protection of those who acted in good faith. The Charities (Amendment) Bill seeks to strengthen the regulatory framework of the COC and to further empower the Commissioner to bring any "Key Persons" to task; all this to make charities more accountable to the public and to its funders. The Bill proposes that section 2 of the Charities Act be amended to broaden the definition of "Key Persons" who can be brought to task should things go wrong. As a result, members of a charity who, I quote, "provides advice to the charity on the control and management of the administration of the charity" are now also made accountable.

Whereas section 46A of the Charities Act protects the Commissioner, his Deputy Commissioner, his Assistant Commissioner or any officers appointed by the Commissioner, or any Sector Administrator, by guaranteeing "no action, suit or other legal proceedings shall be taken" for anything done in good faith. There is no corresponding protection for the "Key Persons", some of whom are volunteers, which includes key staff and board members who have acted in good faith.

Sir, we should take care that the powers of the Commissioner must not make the participation of individuals so onerous so as to discourage the participation of potential contributors to the charities. Bearing in mind that many board members are busy people, volunteers with their own day jobs and many key staff in charities do their best within the constraints of the charities, surely, the Ministry should provide some assurance in the Act that they would be protected from liability if they prove to have acted in good faith and also perhaps consider liability insurance as an industry practice for board members and key officers.

Next, on cost of governance. Both poor and good governance comes with a cost. Charities with poor governance standards often find themselves paying the ultimate price of not just having their key officers and board members taken to task by the law, but also the potential closure of the charities, impacting the lives of its beneficiaries. Good governance, on the other hand, does not come free either and, in many cases, paid out of the funders or other donors of the charity.

The cost of governance includes internal and external audits, legal advice for both strategic and operational issues, costs to comply with constitutional and statutory requirements, and even risk management analysis, which can take a lot of time and effort, not to mention the time expended by the staff, the management and board members of the charity.

In one of the larger-sized charities that I am involved in, the cost of governance can rise to as high as more than $90,000, and that is not including the pro bono legal services and secretariat services that it obtains from its board members and the time spent to work with the internal and external auditors or professionals. Each fundraising event also carries the cost of an audit of the financial statements of each event. There are also additional hidden costs when charities, for example, run services funded sometimes by more than one funder and then are obliged to produce multiple reports for one same programme as a condition for receiving the grants. All these items add to the operational cost of both large and small charities.

I therefore urge the COC to conduct a study of the different sectors under its Administrators to determine if the costs of governance in each of its sector is too low, just nice or too high, and then to provide the necessary support and to rectify the situations as needed.

In conclusion, getting the governance just right. In the UK, Pilotlight Group helps UK charities and social enterprises thrive by harnessing the skills of business leaders. In 2015, the group offers yet another angle to measure the effectiveness of governance using a self-assessment thermometer to determine if governance might be too heavy or too light. The scale that it develops test if the board members are too engaged or too unengaged; if the structures and procedures of the charities are too restrictive or too loose, if trustee skills are too narrow or too generic to be of use, and so forth. The COC may wish to study this simple tool to help getting governance just right, in addition to its "comply or explain" and "yes/no" governance checklist.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is more to charities than just keeping their operations solvent and in line with the Charity Commission's governance standards, especially in a time such as this and in view of the increasing significance of some charity players.

Over-governance is costly and stifling. Under-governance, on the other hand, puts the charity and its core mission at risk. The Charities (Amendment) Bill is a good attempt to update the governance regulations to keep up with the times. There is much more to do than to get the governance just right. I hope the COC and its partners will consider my suggestion for the development of an ITM and I hope that the next review of the Charities Act will be more transformational, more visionary and reflective of the vibrancy and the high potential charities can value-add to society.

I offer, in conclusion, the COC my fullest support and assistance if required and I fully support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

5.26 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill is timely to restore the public's trust in Singapore's charity sector, after a few high-profile scandals in the past years, which shocked the nation. I am heartened to see that there is constant review of the Charities Act, with the last one just seven years ago, and that we continually seek to strengthen accountability in this sector.

I have the privilege of starting my own charity 17 years ago when I was a little boy. Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (ACRES) has a gone a long way since our birth in 2001 in my bedroom in my parents' house. I actually never told my parents I used our home address as the first ACRES address but I guess now is a good time to tell them.

I can tell you that it is not easy starting and running a charity in Singapore and, in fact, many said I would fail when I first started ACRES.

As a charity fully dependent on donations, I am aware of the difficulties local charities face in raising funds to sustain their operations. It would be a great pity to see a rare few black sheep wreak distrust in the charity sector, hampering the necessary work of more than 2,000 registered charities in Singapore.

Fundraising success depends on the goodwill of the public, and goodwill is often very fragile, dependent on the level of trust held by the public that the dollar donated makes a positive impact on the lives of the beneficiaries. Trust hangs by a thread and, once broken, is terribly difficult to restore. Thus, I am encouraged that constant reviews and amendments of the Charities Act help to prevent errant behaviour and ultimately, protect the good work of the vast majority of charities in Singapore.

However, parts of the Bill may have the contrary effect of hampering the charity sector due to the lack of clarity.

First, the revised definition of "fundraising appeal" as proposed in clause 10 may have a dampening effect on funding for the charity sector. Based on feedback I received and also via Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH), there were questions raised about whether an "appeal" includes unsolicited funds.

There were also questions on what "a confined group of persons" mean. Would this refer to private fundraising activities? I understand the Minister had provided some examples earlier but how do we define small-scale private fundraising? And these small-scale private fundraising activities are commonplace in the charity sector, for example, a bake sale at a company event, or a birthday party. Surely, the law will not extend to these cases as well. I hope that the Ministry be clear on certain types of fundraising appeals which can be exempted from which provisions in this Act.

Furthermore, charities raising funds for foreign purposes need to apply for a permit, and this requirement now extends to private events. Application permits are an administrative hassle and, unless the application process can be simplified, I fear that this may not bode well for charities which conduct activities abroad, such as humanitarian charities.

As I mentioned in my Budget cut last year, "The Government is providing funds to help firms scale-up and internationalise and helping build capabilities to operate overseas. We should do the same for our IPCs. We should support our local IPCs who internationalise, who fly the Singapore flag proudly overseas and who lend a helping hand to our neighbours. Let us not be seen to just venture into other countries to compete, to take but also to give and to help."

Many of these charities and IPCs depend on volunteers and donations from private fundraising activities. There may be a dampening effect on fundraising for these charities, often already faced with additional barriers to fundraising, such as the 80:20 rule. These charities promote the Singapore spirit of generosity in some of the most difficult places, and should receive our fullest support.

I also raise the issue of crowdfunding, which has proven to be an effective platform for the needy, but have also suffered a few cases of malpractice. I understand that the Commissioner will be issuing a new code of practice for crowdfunding, but I would like to ask the reason for not including these changes into the Charity Act and thus making them mandatory.

On support for charities, I refer to the recent Charity Transparency Awards, noting that only 41 out of the possible hundreds or even thousands of charities assessed by the Charity Council made the cut on disclosure and transparency. This suggests that there is room for the majority of charities in Singapore to enhance their performance in the criteria assessed, such as financial management, internal control, fundraising management and conflict of interest. I suspect that this is because most charities are resource-strapped. Just like ACRES, we often rely on volunteers, a very small pool of full-time staff members and limited funding, and are often busy fighting day-to-day fires. Has the Ministry looked at ways we can better support charities, other than those that the Minister had mentioned in the Opening speech, especially the smaller ones?

Finally, I would like to commend MCCY for its efforts to engage the public which I hope will become commonplace. I have read the Ministry's response to feedback received through REACH and have found it to be very comprehensive. Each comment received a detailed reply. It also showed that feedback received from the public was well-researched and proved to be constructive. I hope that more Bills will undergo similar public engagement, something that I firmly believe will help us to draft the best Bill.

Sir, these changes will strengthen accountability and public trust in our charity sector, and can only reap benefits for beneficiaries that we are trying to support. I stand in support of the Bill, and I am sorry, Sir, I forgot to declare at the onset. I declare my interest as the Chief Executive of a charity.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

5.33 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the amendments to strengthen Government oversight and raise governance standards of the charities sector. If our charities sector is to grow, we must ensure that donations are utilised as intended and reach their targeted clients.

To increase transparency and boost accountability, the Bill proposes to mandate the electronic filing of annual submissions. I would like to recommend that we go a step further by requiring charities to submit their accounts on a quarterly basis. These accounts should, of course, be publicly available for scrutiny.

Besides meeting submission criteria and standards required by auditors of the COC, these numbers should be accompanied by brief notes in simple English so that donors and interested parties can have a clear idea of how the funds are used. The directors' and key management's fees, as well as all related party transactions, if any, must be laid out to ensure arms' length transactions.

I do not think such requirements are too onerous nor tedious. Good housekeeping and the provision of regular updates are key to sustainability and a small price to pay towards gaining the trust of donors in a charity. A good growing reputation will attract even more funds to support its cause.

To this end, I would also suggest that we require charities to maintain separate accounts for operations and for the charities fund accounts, similar to practices by law firms. We can consider setting ratios where a certain percentage of each dollar raised must be deposited into the charities' fund account for the approved and designated use. Such controls will help reduce incidences of where disproportionate amounts of money are used to pay for commissions, salaries, fees and purposes other than direct assistance for the intended beneficiaries and so on.

Next, the amendments seek to clarify the definition of a fundraising appeal to ensure that all such appeals are subject to regulatory requirements. However, I feel that we can do more to address the proliferation of online fundraisers. In particular, how does the Government intend to monitor and ensure compliance from entities not based in Singapore, even as they reach out to Singaporeans and residents for funds?

At the very least, for online fundraisers based here, we should consider requiring them to be registered in Singapore and for the accounts to be maintained in Singapore, and at least two of the directors should be Singaporeans. With that, I conclude my support for the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Grace Fu.

5.36 pm

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to thank Members who have spoken on this Bill for their broad support and comments. Let me now address some of the comments raised.

Members have raised several points on the scope of the regulation of fundraising appeals. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Dennis Tan have made certain enquiries about the scope of fundraising appeals. The amendments that we have proposed in this Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, serve to clarify the definition, not extend its scope.

All fundraising appeals, whether online or offline, whether for local or foreign purposes, have been and continue to be subject to the Act. The Act also imposes obligations on persons and organisations raising funds or receiving the funds raised.

A person raising funds via an online fundraising platform for a needy family will contravene the law if the funds raised are not applied to the said cause. A charity that is in the service of providing nursing care for the elderly has an obligation under the law to ensure that any unsolicited donation it receives is applied to the said object. Therefore, the examples that Mr Louis Ng and also the point raised by Mr Dennis Tan about small-scale private fundraising activities and unsolicited donations are therefore bound by the Act.

However, we are mindful not to stifle giving while safeguarding public interest. We recognise that fundraising appeals come in a wide range of scale and complexity, from bake sales to nationwide campaigns. As explained in my earlier speech, we regulate fundraising activities through the Charities (Fundraising Appeals for Local and Foreign Charitable Purposes) Regulations 2012 in a risk-adjusted approach. In practice, we have exempted all appeals for local causes from the requirement to apply for permits. This exemption has also been extended to appeals for donations-in-kind for foreign causes.

We are revising our Regulations to keep up with the needs of the charity sector. We intend to exempt small-scale and private fundraising appeals from certain requirements. We will review the administrative requirements on fundraising, including for foreign causes, an issue that was raised by Mr Ng. This framework of scoping the regulatory requirements through the regulations allow us to be nimble and responsive to the needs of the sector and the public.

Mr Louis Ng referred to the 80:20 rule as a barrier to fundraising for foreign causes. The 80:20 rule stipulates that with regard to fundraising for foreign charitable purposes, at least 80% of funds collected by the fundraiser must go towards charitable purposes in Singapore. This ensures that resources are not collected from the public for overseas causes at the expense of local needs. Mr Dennis Tan also asked for my views on this matter. We have reviewed this and we felt that at this point in time, the 80:20 rule will remain for now.

I will also like to point out that the Commissioner can and does, on a case-by-case basis, waive this rule to support, for example, appeals in aid of providing immediate humanitarian and disaster relief.

Many Members, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Louis Ng, Ms Denise Phua, Mr Melvin Yong, Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Thanaletchimi, have spoken on the proliferation of online fundraising appeals and asked how we regulate these appeals. Allow me to explain that the Act is not of extraterritorial application. If the appeal is conducted by an individual residing overseas and it is not targeted at residents in Singapore, the appeal may not be deemed to be carried out in Singapore. Such appeals are not regulated by the Commissioner as we do not have extraterritorial jurisdiction. The same applies to crowdfunding intermediaries.

Where a fundraising appeal falls under our purview, the Commissioner will investigate if contravention of our regulations is suspected. This includes investigating cases of alleged misrepresentation or half-truths that Members spoke about. Members of the public should report suspicious fundraising appeals to the Commissioner. Where irregularities are found, the Commissioner can stop the appeal and direct a fund raiser to refund donations collected, a point that Mr Melvin Yong has asked.

Members have called for greater regulation in the online sphere. We recognise that online platforms bring convenience to donors and have the potential to expand the reach and impact of fundraising campaigns. Given the ease of conducting online fundraising appeals and the speed with which funds are raised, the online channels are proliferating. Coupled with the anonymity of the Internet, regulating the online fundraising sector is a complex and difficult task.

Our approach is one of co-regulation, where a safe online giving environment is a shared responsibility. We are collaborating with the sector, specifically the crowdfunding intermediaries. By co-developing a practical and workable Code of Practice, we aim to set an industry standard of good practices that will instil transparency and accountability in the sector. We will create greater awareness and nudge both intermediaries and fundraisers in the online sphere towards complying with the Code of Practice. The best practices in the Code include conducting due diligence to ensure the legitimacy of appeals, providing up-to-date information on funds raised and fees charged, and maintaining proper records of donations received and disbursed.

Under the Code, crowdfunding platforms will require fundraisers to declare their awareness and compliance with key regulatory requirements when using their platforms. This serves to remind fundraisers of their duties and obligations of providing information that is complete and true, and ensure that funds raised are used only for the declared objectives.

While the Code of Practice will not be made mandatory, the Commissioner will lend weight to promote its adoption. The Commissioner will publish the list of compliant platforms and encourage the public to donate through these intermediaries.

While we put in place regulations and guidelines on the fundraisers, donors have a part to play in practising safe giving, both in the online and offline spheres. We are stepping up public education efforts to empower the public with the knowledge and skills to better differentiate legitimate appeals from those that are not. We will customise our safe giving guidance for different segments of the population to ensure effective communication. This could range from hardcopy infographics for the elderly, to posts and references on social media.

Members have raised several suggestions on enhancing governance, transparency and accountability of charities. We agree that these attributes are key to gaining the trust of donors. However, we are mindful of the compliance costs that are imposed on charities, a point that Ms Denise Phua has raised. We are therefore constantly weighing the benefits and costs of regulations to be imposed and seeking to strike the right balance, the right balance that she has talked about. About 50% of charities in Singapore have annual receipts of less than $250,000. The majority of our charities conduct their activities responsibly. So, we agree totally with Ms Chia's point.

Given the profile of our charities, we have assessed that an annual reporting requirement is adequate for the sector. This is in response to Mr Gan's point. Charities are required to submit an annual report containing a review of their activities as well as their financial statements, which are published for public access. For IPCs and larger charities, they are subject to more stringent requirements, such as audits by a public accountant and disclosure requirements in line with accounting standards. This includes disclosures in the charity's financial statements on related party transactions, as well as explanatory notes on the use of funds. If there is a reason, such as in the case of a charity being investigated, the Commissioner will require more frequent updates on its activities and financials.

I would like now to clarify on certain points raised by Members on the reporting requirements for registered charities and exempt charities, a point that Ms Chia Yong Yong has raised. As part of the review, the Commissioner also took the opportunity to clarify the regulatory requirements that would apply to registered charities and exempt charities which enjoy tax benefits. In response to Ms Chia, we do have charities which are not successful in their application for registration as they do not meet certain requirements, such as having a purpose that is substantially beneficial to the community in Singapore. So, there are certain reporting requirements that do not apply to these charities that have not been successful in registration.

In addition to regulatory requirements, the Code of Governance for Charities and IPCs applies. The Code of Governance serves as a best practices guide in key areas of governance and management, and comprises tiered guidelines depending on the status and size of the charity.

To accommodate the diversity in governance structures across charities, we believe that the current "Comply or Explain" principle is relevant. Charities' reasons for non-compliance with the Code will be published. The Commissioner takes into account the reasons for non-compliance with the Code in assessing a charity's application for IPC status and in selecting charities for review.

On Members' concerns about controls on the use of funds raised, points mentioned by Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Thanaletchimi, charities are currently required to cap their fundraising expenses in any given year to not more than 30% of total funds raised. The board members of a charity have a fiduciary duty to ensure that the charity is governed and managed responsibly by ensuring that funds are used prudently and in accordance with the intended purposes.

Nevertheless, we agree with the Members that more can be done so that stakeholders have greater clarity on how a charity's funds are used. The Commissioner will be developing a guide to help all charities, big and small, put out key information, both financial and non-financial, in a manner that will help donors and other stakeholders understand the financial position, use of donations and activities of a charity.

Several Members have raised points on the powers and provisions relating to the protection of charities, donors and charitable assets. Ms Chia Yong Yong, Mr Melvin Yong, Ms Joan Pereira, Ms Thanaletchimi, Mr Alex Yam and Ms Denise Phua have raised some points. In proposing amendments to the Act, due consideration is given to ensure that the powers given to the Commissioner are fair, reasonable and essential, with sufficient safeguards in place.

The Bill proposes to allow the Commissioner to extend the suspension of persons from their positions in a charity and suspend improper fundraising appeals. The total period of such suspensions, including any extensions of the suspensions, are proposed to be capped at 24 months. Ms Chia has asked whether such suspensions should be extended to 24 months in the first instance, while Mr Yong is concerned with the potential disruption to the charity during the suspension.

We have assessed the proposed increase from 12 to 24 months to be fair and reasonable. It should be noted that when the Commissioner orders a charity to suspend an improper fundraising appeal, the suspension does not prohibit the charity from conducting other fundraising appeals. So, for example, if the fundraising appeal in question is for the building of a new facility, the charity can continue to raise funds for its operations while the questionable appeal is being suspended. During any period of suspension, as with any serious situation requiring the Commissioner's intervention, the Commissioner will work closely with the governing board of the charity to ensure the continuity of its operations and services. We may review the necessity to extend the suspension period further later.

On the disqualification and removal regimes, our objective is to ensure that charities are managed by fit and proper persons who will help maintain public trust and confidence in the sector. Hence, to strengthen the regime, the Bill proposes to explicitly provide that persons convicted of terrorism, terrorism financing or money laundering will be disqualified.

Ms Thanaletchimi asked if the risk is real. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which is an intergovernmental standard-setting body for combating money laundering and terrorism financing has, in recent years, noted the increasing role of non-profit organisations in terrorism financing. FATF has recorded over 100 cases worldwide of alleged abuse of charities for terrorism financing. The risk is, therefore, real and increasing, and that is the reason for us to strengthen our legislation in this regard. And I will take note of Ms Thanaletchimi's advice for us not to stress that this only relates to charities with an object in religion.

Mr Alex Yam queried about the number of money laundering or terrorism financing cases that the Commissioner has investigated. While we have not taken action under the Act against charities for money laundering or terrorism financing-related offences, the Commissioner has carried out targeted reviews and worked closely with the law enforcement agencies to monitor the vulnerabilities that the charity sector may be exposed to. It would only take one case of a charity in Singapore being involved in money laundering or terrorism financing to shake public confidence in the charity sector as well as in the wider sector, including the financial sector. The proposed amendment, therefore, seeks to strengthen our regulatory regime in light of emerging risks and signals our commitment to ensure that charities are not misused to provide a front for such unlawful activities.

The Member has also asked about the permanence of disqualifications where spent convictions are involved. As mentioned in my earlier speech, where a person is disqualified under the Act on the ground of a criminal conviction, such as for an offence involving dishonesty, the disqualification ceases once the conviction becomes spent, or the person receives a pardon for the offence.

Removals under the Act, on the other hand, are permanent. If a person is removed on the ground of a criminal conviction of an offence involving moral turpitude, he will be permanently barred from returning to that charity as a board member or key officer. The permanence is intended as the cause for removal is serious in respect of the charity that he is serving, and it is a result of deliberate consideration. In the case of removal after inquiry for mismanagement or misconduct, the removed person is barred from key positions in the rest of the sector.

On the protection of charities' governing board members, as raised by Ms Denise Phua, we acknowledge the responsibility placed on the governing board members of our charities. As trustees of public funds, they must act with reasonable care and skill to lead charities to do good work well. The law protects those who have acted honestly and reasonably from personal liability.

And in response to Mr Dennis Tan's point earlier about the difference between board members and key officers, these are two separate groups of persons, as mentioned in the Act. Board members would include all board members. Key officers would be officers in the company or in the charity that have influence on key decisions and are involved in the control of management and operations of the company. Some board members could also be assuming key officer roles, but they are two separate categories altogether. So, it does not mean that a key officer who is not a board member will be relieved of his obligations. A key officer will be restricted, as we defined it, to a few persons who have management control of the outfit. So, typically, in a very small charity, that probably would relate to the General Manager or the Chief Executive Officer.

We echo Members' call for greater support for charities. The Commissioner supports charities on three fronts.

First, on capability building, we are working closely with the Centre for Non-profit Leadership to reach out to professionals with the heart to serve and pair them up with charities who need help. Ms Chia Yong Yong and Ms Denise Phua have made a very strong and convincing case about the need for the sector to attract talent and to professionalise the sector. We totally agree with them. The Commissioner will work with partners, including professional bodies, to engage charities and share know-how. Townhall sessions and the annual Charity Governance Conference are some examples of capability building efforts. In 2017, more than 1,600 participants attended our learning events.

Second, on processes, the Commissioner is looking at simplifying regulatory reporting, with a focus on effective reporting. This will be particularly helpful to smaller charities.

Third, on cost, the Commissioner is working with partners, such as the apex organisations, to set up shared services that charities can tap on. Ms Joan Pereira has spoken about it. Ms Chia Yong Yong has called for collaboration. These shared services may explore the suggestions brought up by these Members to assist charities which are experiencing either temporary problems or to help strengthen their compliance, governance and effectiveness. Charities can also tap on the VWOs-Charities Capability Fund to support their efforts in improving their governance and management capabilities.

On electronic filing, in response to Mr Melvin Yong's question, fewer than 100 of our registered charities are still filing hardcopy submissions. So, the large majority of the rest of the 2,200 or so charities have already gone on to electronic filing. To assist these charities, we provide support via the VWOs-Charities Capability Fund for the purchase of computers. They may also tap on the shared services facilities mentioned earlier.

Next, working with our stakeholders and customising our regulatory approach. Ms Denise Phua made a wonderful speech calling for greater customisation of our regulatory approach. We recognise that the charity sector is diverse and reaches out to different parts of the society. To this end, the Commissioner works closely with different stakeholders to achieve our shared vision. The Commissioner is assisted by the five Sector Administrators in various Ministries and agencies − MOH, MOE and MSF − who will best understand the needs of their respective sectors, including which ones are working closely with them, providing essential services that are required to serve the needs of the community. They serve as points of contact for the charities in their sector and work closely with the Commissioner to ensure consistency in the regulatory stance and effective regulation.

Many of our capability building initiatives are also tailored based on the needs of the respective sectors. For instance, following the launch of the refined Code of Governance in April 2017, we worked with different partners, including apex organisations for different sectors, to conduct sharing sessions on the Code for their respective sectors. We will continue to assess how to better customise in our future reviews.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank the Members for raising many good suggestions, including on the powers of the Commissioner to better protect charities, the specifics on the electronic transactions service, the regulatory approach towards charities and an ITM and preparing for a new sector where a new model of charities should be envisaged and implemented. We are fully supportive of these suggestions. We will take them into consideration for the next round of the review.

I would like to conclude by thanking Members once again for their support for the Bill and for their valuable comments.

As fellow Members have rightly expressed, trust is key for the charity sector. The underlying objective of our proposed legislative amendments is to enhance this trust. In proposing the amendments, we have also held fast to our commitment of a balanced regulatory framework. We want to have a charity sector that not only has the trust and confidence of the public, but also one that is healthy and thriving. It is our goal to nurture a charity sector that remains driven by the community. We will continue to encourage co-regulation and a culture of transparency, and our regulatory approach will reflect this.

Sir, everyone has a role to play in achieving this goal. We will continue to work with partners, such as the Charity Council and professional bodies, to help charities strengthen their capabilities and governance. We are encouraged by the vision that leaders of the sector, such as Ms Chia Yong Yong and Ms Denise Phua, have painted for us and we are committed to supporting such ground-up initiatives. We will step up public education efforts to empower donors to give wisely and to donate with both the head and heart. Charities, too, need to ensure that they are well-governed and accountable to win the trust of the public, especially their donors and volunteers. Together, our efforts will help the charity sector flourish. A healthy and vibrant charity sector is the bedrock to a caring and cohesive Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

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. – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien].

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