Societies (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker: Minister for Home Affairs.

3.19 pm

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

The Societies Act governs the registration of societies. It ensures that groups that may be used for unlawful purposes, pose a threat to safety and security, or whose activities are contrary to our national interests, are not allowed to establish themselves in Singapore.

To ensure that the Societies Act remains relevant and can continue to meet its intent, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has proposed a set of amendments to: (a) strengthen the regulation of societies to safeguard national interests and security; and (b) provide better clarity to the public on the registration requirements.

We had conducted engagement sessions with selected societies in 2022 and 2023, as well as a public consultation exercise in 2022 via the REACH platform. The feedback was supportive of the proposed amendments. Let me now go through the provisions of the Bill.

First, we aim to strengthen the registration process. Currently, applications to register societies can be processed via two routes.

The Normal Route is for applications that fall within the categories specified in the Schedule of the Societies Act. These societies are involved in issues which are more sensitive, such as politics, religion, race, language and nationality. Such applications go through vetting and assessment by the Registrar of Societies, which may involve several rounds of clarifications with the applicant. The Registrar has the authority to reject applications submitted via the Normal Route.

We also have the Automatic Route. This was introduced in 2004, for applications that do not fall within the categories specified in the Schedule of the Societies Act. It is meant for societies involved in issues which are less sensitive. For these applications, the Societies Act currently states that the Registrar shall, without making any further inquiry, register these societies on the date the Registrar receives the application, so long as the formal requirements for registration are met.

In the last five years, we received about 1,400 applications. About half of them were submitted via the Automatic Route. This differentiated approach in processing applications has allowed MHA to focus its attention on assessing the more sensitive applications. That said, there are two gaps.

First, there were instances when the Registrar needed information to ascertain whether applications under the Automatic Route indeed did not fall within the sensitive categories in the Schedule of the Societies Act. However, the current law does not allow the Registrar to seek clarifications of such applications.

Second, even if an application does not fall within the sensitive categories in the Schedule, it could still be of concern. However, the Registrar currently has no authority to reject such applications. Clause 4 of the Bill, therefore, amends section 4A of the Societies Act to: remove the obligation on the Registrar to register a society under the Automatic Route without making an inquiry. This will allow the Registrar to make inquiries of applications submitted via the Automatic Route; and empower the Registrar to reject an application submitted via the Automatic Route, if the Registrar is satisfied that the society, if registered: (a) is likely to be used for unlawful purposes or for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore; or (b) would be contrary to Singapore’s national security or interest.

Let me give Members a hypothetical example of the current gaps and how these amendments will address the gaps.

Suppose a group of individuals, with antecedents of concern, wished to set up a society to advocate for the interest of a racial group. However, they know that if they were to set up a society promoting the interests of a particular race, they would have to do so via the Normal Route, where the Registrar would be able to scrutinise their application, such as asking questions to clarify the objectives of the society and queries on their leadership composition. To avoid being questioned, this group tries to set up a society with an innocuous aim, such as a history interest group. Such an application could then be submitted via the Automatic Route, which currently, will be approved immediately.

The proposed amendments in the Bill would allow the Registrar to make inquiries on all applications submitted, for both Automatic and Normal Routes.

Clause 4 of the Bill adds a new section to allow appeals to the Minister for Home Affairs for rejected applications via the Automatic Route, similar to the existing appeal mechanism for applications via the Normal Route. If an appeal is rejected by the Minister, the applicants can launch a judicial review, no different from today. We expect the majority of applications for registration of societies to still go through the Automatic Route without the need for any clarifications.

Our next set of amendments seeks to clarify the Registrar’s powers for applications submitted via the Normal Route. Currently, under the Normal Route, the Registrar may request an applicant to insert clauses into their constitution, prior to allowing the registration of the society. This practice is in accordance with section 29(1)(b) of the Interpretation Act, which provides that a power to grant a licence, permit, approval or exemption, also includes the power to impose reasonable conditions.

For instance, to preserve Singapore’s multi-religious and multiracial harmony, the Registrar may request an applicant of a society that is involved in issues of race and religion to insert a clause that the society "shall not engage in any activities that may undermine racial or religious harmony in Singapore", as a condition for registration.

Clause 3 of the Bill inserts a new section 4(3A) to make it explicit that the Registrar has powers to require the rules of specified societies to be amended as a condition for registration. The Registrar can refuse to register the society if the society does not comply. Section 4(3A) does not list the grounds for which the Registrar will direct a specified society to amend its rules. However, this does not mean that the Registrar can require a society to include unreasonable rules into its Constitution, failing which the Registrar will reject an application.

The Registrar’s decisions must still have a nexus to the purpose of the Societies Act, which is to ensure that groups which may be used for unlawful purposes, or poses a threat to public order, welfare or good order in Singapore or which will be contrary to our national interests will not be established in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, I will now touch on amendments affecting registered societies.

Currently, under section 11 of the Societies Act, societies need to seek the Registrar’s approval to change their name or amend the rules in their constitution. The Societies Act is silent on the grounds on which the Registrar can refuse to approve such applications. To provide clarity to societies, clause 8 of the Bill amends section 11 to include the grounds on which the Registrar may refuse to approve a change of name or an amendment of provisions in the societies’ constitution. For example, the Registrar can refuse to approve a change in name if the new name is likely to mislead members of the public as to the true character or purpose of the society.

The Registrar can refuse to approve a change in the constitution if it would be contrary to Singapore’s national interest or prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore. For avoidance of doubt, the Registrar will not be limited to the grounds stated in the Act.

Under section 12(1)(b) of the Societies Act, the Minister can currently declare a person to be unfit to be an officer of a society by reason of any conviction for a criminal offence, for example, where the officer is convicted for dishonesty, such as fraud, scam, cheating or misuse of monies, as well as offences under the Societies Act. An "officer" here refers to committee members and does not include members of the society.

For ease of administration, clause 10 of the Bill amends section 12(1)(b) of the Societies Act to allow the Registrar, instead of the Minister, to declare a person as unfit to be an officer of a society. The Minister will be the appellate authority. A person who is declared to be unfit by the Registrar can apply to the Minister for permission to act as an officer of a society.

Currently, section 2 of the Societies Act defines the place of business of a registered society as "the place where the records and books of account of a society is kept". This is too narrow in today’s context where virtual offices and storage of documents on the cloud are common. Instead of place of business, clause 2 of the Bill amends section 2 of the Societies Act to refer to "registered address" instead, defined as the address of the society that is kept and maintained with the Registrar. Consequential amendments will be made throughout the Societies Act.

The next set of amendments are on the offences.

The last review of the penalties in the Societies Act was done in 2004, 19 years ago. We are increasing the fine quantum for all the offences in the Societies Act to keep up with inflation and to ensure that the fine quantum continues to have a deterrent effect. In addition, we have updated the offences of providing false information to the Registrar.

Currently, sections 10 and 29 of the Societies Act penalise the failure to provide information and the provision of false information to the Registrar. Clauses 7 and 14 of the Bill update these provisions to align with the language used in newer Acts, such as the Debt Collection Act.

In particular, on the provision of false information to the Registrar, the fault element of the offender is presently not mentioned in sections 10 and 29. This means that even if a person provided false or inaccurate information by mistake, he would be in breach.

MHA's view is that only those who intentionally, knowingly or recklessly provide false or inaccurate information should be liable. Clauses 7 and 14 of the Bill, therefore, amend the fault element of these offences accordingly.

Clause 15 of the Bill introduces a new section 30A to allow the Registrar to compound offences in the Societies Act as an alternative to charging offenders in Court.

The Bill also includes amendments to facilitate the administration and regulation of societies.

First, we are proposing amendments to allow for electronic transmission of documents. These are in clauses 5, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 16 of the Bill.

Second, currently, application fees are to be paid upon approval of applications before the society is registered. MHA intends to charge the fee upon submission of an application, as costs will have to be incurred to assess the application, regardless of whether the registration is approved. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill give effect to this.

Third, societies which are charities presently have to file their annual submissions to two separate authorities, the Registry of Societies and Charities Unit. To reduce the administrative burden on societies which are also charities, a one-stop service will be established which allows such societies to file their annual submissions only once. Clause 17 of the Bill introduces new sections to allow the Registrar to prescribe different forms for them. The details of the one-stop service will be worked out with Charities Unit later.

Mr Speaker, the amendments that MHA has proposed aim to strengthen and modernise the regulatory framework governing societies. I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

3.33 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to make just two short points in my speech.

I start by highlighting Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. Under Article 14(1)(c) of the Constitution, all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations.

However, this is not an untrammelled right. Article 14(2) specifically provides that Parliament may impose restrictions by law as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore, public order or morality. Further, Article 14(3) allows Parliament to impose, by law, restrictions relating to labour or education.

The Societies Act 1966 is a piece of legislation that Parliament passed to impose the restrictions contemplated in Article 14(2). We can appreciate, therefore, that the Act performs an important gatekeeping function.

Indeed, in 2004, when the Act was last amended, the hon Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs then, Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee, stated as follows in this House and I quote, "The Societies Act plays a gate-keeping role in ensuring that groups which may be used for unlawful purposes, or pose a threat to public order, welfare or good order in Singapore, or which will be contrary to our national interests are not allowed to establish themselves in Singapore."

The operative provision is section 4 of the Act which vests with the Registrar the power to refuse the registration of a specified society in enumerated circumstances. These include situations where, in the opinion of the Registrar, the specified society is likely to be used for unlawful purposes or for purposes prejudicial to public peace as contemplated in Article 14(2) of the Constitution.

Save for the enumerated circumstances, it is provided in section 4(1) of the Act that the Registrar shall register the society upon certain conditions being fulfilled.

The current arrangement makes good sense as it gives primacy to the constitutional right of Singaporeans to form associations, save in certain circumstances. At the same time, there is clarity on the basis upon which the Registrar can reject a society’s application. This was specifically acknowledged by Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee in this House in the same speech. He said and I quote, "In the first instance, the Registrar will have the discretion to look at applications. But his discretion is not an unfettered one… He bases his discretion on the Act itself. Section 4 of the Act sets out the premises upon which he can reject a society's application."

Under clause 3(a) of the Bill, it is proposed that the Registrar is vested with a discretion instead. The word "shall" is proposed to be replaced with "may".

On the face of it, it is proposed that the Registrar is to be given a certain measure of discretion to decide whether or not to register a specified society. On the face of it, the ambit of discretion is not specifically spelt out, save that it is subject to several circumstances set out in section 4 where the Registrar has the specific power to refuse registration of specified societies.

May I ask the hon Minister of State how would such a proposed amendment be aligned with Article 14 of the Constitution and the purpose behind section 4 of the Act as spelt out by Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee in this House in 2004?

In a similar vein, I seek the hon Minister of State's explanation on the proposal to vest in the Registrar the power to not register a specified society unless the rules of the society include or exclude provisions that the Registrar may direct. This is set out in clause 3(c) of the Bill.

Again, having regard to the constitutional provisions that I have highlighted earlier in my speech, may I ask what the ambit of this power will be? And I understand from the hon Minister of State's speech that it is meant to be used where national interests are engaged. But interestingly, unlike the power when you are dealing with amendments of rules, which is spelt out in clause 8(c) of the Bill, the grounds in respect of which the Registrar may invoke a direction to amend the rules is absent, when it comes to requiring the applicant to amend the rules at the point of application before the society is even registered. So, there is a dichotomy in the approach.

May I ask the hon Minister of State whether it is contemplated that the power would always be exercised in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution? Notwithstanding my comments, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

3.38 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the automatic registration regime was the main amendment introduced in the Societies (Amendment) Bill in 2004.

That was, in turn, derived from a recommendation by the Remaking Singapore Committee, chaired by then Minister of State for National Development, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, to adopt a differentiated approach by listing down explicitly the types of societies that would require prior approval. Those outside the list would be "automatically" approved and registered.

The Committee added a caveat that the registrations of such societies could still be revoked if they were subsequently found to use the society for unlawful purposes.

MHA then consulted the public on this and public feedback was generally supportive. MHA then finetuned the feedback received and finalised the scheme.

Under the 2004 Societies (Amendment) Bill, the "automatic regime" required the Registrar of Societies to register these societies on the date the application is received without making further inquiries, as long as the payment of the prescribed fee and other formalities are met.

During the Second Reading of the Bill in 2004, the then Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs, Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee, said that the amendments would "make it easier for many societies to be registered" and that "the changes are in line with the Government's move to loosen up restrictions to encourage greater social entrepreneurship." He called this automatic regime a "forward-looking approach".

The Bill before us today reverses some of the liberalisations to the Societies Act in 2004. It seeks to allow the Registrar to require further information to ascertain whether the society does, indeed, qualify for registration via the Automatic Route.

The Bill also allows the Registrar to reject an application submitted via the Automatic Route if the Registrar is satisfied that the society, if registered, is likely to be used for unlawful purposes or for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore or would be contrary to Singapore's national interests or security. This effectively removes the automatic registration process in all but name, as every registration, even for societies that are not specified in the Schedule, will, henceforth, be subject to additional scrutiny. Thus, if the 2004 amendments were a "forward-looking approach", this Bill appears to be a backward-looking approach.

Why are the amendments to the automatic registration route now necessary? What has changed between 2004, when they were introduced, and now?

Section 24(1) of the Act already empowers the Minister to dissolve a society if it had secured automatic registration through false declaration or misrepresentation of its objects and activities at the point of registration. If there is need for an addition to the list of specified societies listed in the Schedule, the Minister is already empowered under section 33A to amend the Schedule by notification in the Gazette. If the society engages in illegal activities, it can be dealt with through a whole host of laws to safeguard national security and racial and religious harmony.

The Minister of State has cited hypothetical examples. Does she have real examples of society applications submitted since 2004 under the Automatic Route where one or both of the "two gaps" she mentioned were breached? What instances were there of registrations of non-specified societies that posed a national security threat and should not have been registered and how did the Registrar deal with those cases?

How many applications to form societies were rejected or refused registration by the Registrar in the past five years and what were the reasons for their rejection or refusal of registration?

Since 2004, we have seen a proliferation of access to the worldwide web, social media, smartphones and artificial intelligence. There is no shortage of data for the authorities to conduct background checks on applicants, even without asking them for more information.

Additionally, questionnaires can be built into the online application form and the applicants' answers to these questions could be used to flag out societies that are not eligible for the automatic registration route. The applicant can then be immediately notified to select the normal registration route before submitting their application.

If all these gates fail and the society gets registered through misrepresentation, the Minister can dissolve the society under section 24(1).

Groups nowadays can easily organise themselves over closed chatgroups and will likely avoid going through the hassle of registering a society if it is made more onerous. It will impose a greater burden on law-abiding groups who diligently register their societies.

By placing more hurdles for groups seeking to organise formally, the unintended effect could be to drive them and their activities underground. When this happens, the Registry of Societies will lose regulatory oversight of their financial conduct, which is one area where regulation is necessary in the public interest. Can the Minister of State assure the House that genuine applications under the Automatic Route will not face longer waiting periods for approval than under the current regime?

Finally, why do societies discussing issues related to civil or political rights, or the governance of Singapore society remain listed in the Schedule? The inclusion of these types of societies in the Schedule means that they cannot be registered under the Automatic Route.

Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee said in 2004 that "such groups, which aim to promote a particular cause, can potentially give rise to law and order problems if they engage actively in pushing their agenda, without due regard for those who may not agree with their cause." Is this still the Government's position and, more importantly, is that the only reason? I look forward to the Minister of State's answers to my questions.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.05 pm. Order. Order.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.45 pm until 4.05 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.05 pm

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

Societies (Amendment) Bill

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.

4.05 pm

Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, social groups play a critical role in fostering social cohesion among Singaporeans. They serve as platforms for the development of strong bonds and community relations, uniting individuals from various social and cultural backgrounds. By forming a society, these groups establish a common identity among members who share a specific objective or purpose. Societies provide a setting for members to engage in discussions or activities related to particular interests or issues in Singapore.

I appreciate MHA's effort in simplifying the process for registration of societies in the past. However, despite existing regulations governing the registration of societies, the evolving societal dynamics and complex international environment have made it more challenging to manage the risks and threats associated with social groups.

Societies can be vulnerable to, and potentially engage in, unlawful activities or be subject to undue foreign influence. Hence, I support the proposed Societies (Amendment) Bill, aimed at strengthening safeguards against such threats.

I would like to focus my speech on three clarifications: one, the Automatic Route's comprehensive vetting process; two, the criteria for special appeals to the Minister for Home Affair; and three, strategies for safeguarding against undue foreign influence on societies that focus on sensitive issues like politics, race and religion.

Firstly, in the amendment Bill, clause 4 amends section 4A to empower the Registrar to refuse to register a society that is not specified in a Schedule, or a non‑specified society, if the Registrar is satisfied that the non‑specified society is likely to be used for unlawful purposes or for purposes prejudicial to public peace.

With the amendment, non-specified societies that apply via the Automatic Route are subject to inquiries by the Registrar to ascertain if they, indeed, qualify for registration via the Automatic Route. It is essential to strike a balance between enabling the formation of societies and ensuring that these groups do not pose risks to national security or public order. I believe that the proposed amendment aims to serve this very purpose. However, I seek to understand the methodology that the Registrar will employ to make these judgements. How comprehensive will the vetting process be and what measures will be put in place to ensure that societies with potential risks are effectively identified?

Additionally, I would like to clarify with MHA on the specific criteria that will be employed to assess whether societies are engaged in unlawful activities that will be prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore. This will offer greater clarity to the public, as well as existing and prospective societies, on the conditions that must be met to ensure compliance.

Secondly, clause 4 of the Bill also amends section 4A to provide the right of appeal to the Minister for Home Affairs from the decision of the Registrar not to register or to refuse a non-specified society. This provides a means for groups to be able to seek redress if they feel that they have a strong case for registration. This appeal process ensures opportunity for due process and serves as an important check-and-balance mechanism. On this issue, I would like to ask MHA how many appeals have been reviewed over the years by the Minister for both scheduled and non-specified societies, and on what grounds are the appeals granted by the Minister.

Lastly, it is worth noting the susceptibility of registered societies in Singapore to foreign influence interests through covert operations. We are reminded that in today's globalised world, the reach of foreign powers is not limited by borders and this makes the regulations of our societies even more imperative.

I hope to understand how MHA intends to combat that in this amendment Bill. While clause 9 of the amendment Bill, which modifies section 11A, clearly empowers the Registrar to mandate rule changes for specified societies as a condition for registration, I am concerned if this is sufficient to manage potential risks.

This formal compliance might appease the authorities on paper, but there remains the risk that the society in question could continue to pursue unlawful objectives. Therefore, I seek clarification from MHA on the mechanisms in place to ensure that undue foreign influence does not infiltrate specified societies discussing or promoting issues related to sensitive issues.

Additionally, will non-specified societies be directed or asked to modify their constitutions if they are identified as engaging in causes that seem to discuss or promote issues that are not aligned with a specific policy or the national interest of Singapore?

In closing, Mr Deputy Speaker, we cannot overlook the delicate balance that must be maintained between allowing societies and interest groups to grow and safeguarding national security. Internal security is of paramount importance to safeguard Singapore against social divisions that destabilise and tear apart any social fabric.

As I have raised earlier, we must ensure that our legal frameworks are robust enough to protect our community groups from being exploited for unlawful purposes. As such, the registration of our societies, whether specified under the Schedule of the Societies Act or not, should advance objectives in promoting communal harmony and the interest of all Singaporeans. Notwithstanding my clarifications raised, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi.

4.12 pm

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to first declare my interests as a past and current serving office-bearer of several societies. More relevant and presently, I am the President of Lembaga Biasiswa Kenangan Maulud and Honorary Secretary of Singapore Psychiatric Association. And I also have memberships in a few other registered societies.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I read the Societies (Amendment) Bill with much interest and, if I may, there is a certain duality that exists within the Bill.

The first of this duality is that it firmly entrenches our determination as a country to maintain public peace, welfare and good order, and protect what is in our national interest. It also suggests and reinforces that we make no apologies in protecting our Singapore society against undesirable and offensive influences that could fracture us along naturally occurring differences, such as religious and racial identities, or against ideas that are rooted in illegal activities or arising from foreign interference.

I am also heartened that the Bill's reach goes wide enough to be able to hold accountable persons who, directly or by proxy, allow any unlawful assembly, induce membership, publish materials and procure subscription and aid for the purposes of such unlawful societies.

I think these rules are necessary and the spirit of the amendments keeps pace with our desire to protect society against such detrimental activities.

The second of this duality, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that the Bill, notwithstanding the increase of maximum punishments and fines and clarifications on the powers of the Registrar of Societies, provides latitude for societies to flourish and for like-minded individuals to share their common perspectives and come together to advocate, to promote, to discuss and to deepen understanding of a wide set of issues and interests. These can range from issues relating to ethnicity, to religion, to nationality or language, to political inclinations, to civil liberties and rights, to the environment and even to animal welfare.

In this regard, the importance of societies within our society cannot be understated. Societies are like ingredients to the recipe of what Singapore is and could become. And beyond political affiliations in this House, I can say with a degree of confidence that many hon Members of the House are, or previously have been, members of societies and ground-up initiatives as well.

The nature of the establishment of any one society necessarily involves a group of people invested in a particular topic or issue enough to want to make formal a cause to call their collective own. It tells of a tale of a determined advocacy and of a meeting of intellectual minds and of a sense of belonging via a common thread, theme and identity.

By extension, this adds much richness and diversity to Singapore because societies, directly or indirectly, develop a rootedness to the local community, allow for outlets of philanthropy and groom the next generation of community leadership.

Mr Deputy Speaker, for youths especially, societies give opportunity to cultivate new ideas, address contemporary issues of interest and advocate for emerging concerns relevant to them and their future.

The thing about new ideas though, especially those without precedent and appearing as foreign and unfamiliar at the onset, is that they may well be seen as an affront initially to the current norm and equilibrium. New ideas could be viewed with much doubt, cynicism or even distrust by the establishment.

I hope that while the Ministry maintains its firm hand on the powers accorded by the Bill to be decisive when it comes to issues of national interest and security, that it also tempers the weight of this responsibility with an even-handed approach to some novelty, creativity, youthful exuberance and unusual ideas so that Singapore society can flourish from the diversity in our societies.

Beyond looking at the current laws and regulations, one must also recognise that the texture and grain of societies registered in any one era of our history tell us, to some extent, the matters of interest, influence and advocacy of the larger Singapore society then.

On 1 October 2023, via a simple search online on the Registry of Societies, I found that more than half, about 4,420 out of a total of 8,321 societies currently registered, are relatively new and were registered only at the turn of the century from 1 January 2001 onwards.

However, it is noteworthy that almost one in 10 registered societies today, or about 798 of them, had already existed pre-Independence more than 58 years ago.

Even as the Ministry is able to exercise its powers and authority, I would urge that the Ministry consider with some nuance, discernment and concern any dissolution of societies that have a long history, track record and legacy alongside Singapore's history.

It may well be that the cause remains as true, important and relevant today as it did pre-Independence, and it is just that the current prevailing interest, strength in leadership or continuity remain a temporary but periodic challenge for that particular society.

Rather than reinventing new organisations at every turn, I urge some discretion to give time and support for such societies, steeped in history and legacy, to recalibrate its identity and reinvigorate itself anew rather than be dissolved. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): The Societies (Amendment) Bill encompasses, among others, Malay/Muslim community organisations which have existed for a long time and did a lot of good for the community since the 1960s. Apart from LBKM, there are also other organisations like Alwehdah, Jamiyah, PERDAUS, PPIS and 4PM which have served for decades in community matters.

These organisations have their own emphasis and focus based on their areas of expertise and specialisation. Although their specific focus area may be different, just like the interdependent bamboo and riverbank, these organisations have shown a desire to work together to address the concerns of the community and the nation.

These organisations have a strong link to Singapore's history and have sculpted, shaped and influenced the lives of our community in Singapore together.

It is normal that many youths want to try out new interests and, sometimes, these interests seem to go against the cultural norms of the day. Although the sculpture may appear different, the style, nonetheless, remains the same: these youths have a deep desire and commitment to serve and uplift society.

At the same time, I also call on youths and professionals to contribute to prominent organisations, and it is not something that is old-fashioned or backward; far from it.

In fact, lately, the torch of leadership in some organisations have already been passed on to the next generation of leaders. They still value legacy and history and have gained confidence and benefited from the knowledge and experience of past leaders.

Some members of these organisations have stepped forward and seized the opportunity to participate in national conversations, such as the National Youth Council and the National Council of Social Services, as well as in the international arena, such as the ASEAN Youth Fellowship.

I hope the Government can balance the need to be firm when enforcing the regulations through this Societies (Amendment) Bill. I fully support the use of tough and expeditious methods to prevent organisations from being corrupt and unlawful or from having divisive elements.

At the same time, I also hope that the Government can recognise the tremendous legacy, history and contributions of organisations that have been working hard over the decades to do good for the people of Singapore.

New and contemporary ideas may sometimes cause misunderstanding initially due to differences in perspective, but if these ideas essentially stem from a desire to uplift society together, I think we should allow such ideas to be explored.

Sooner or later, changes and new ideas will become inevitable. In fact, a sign of a maturing society is when it gives due attention to renewal and recalibration after careful consideration.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, to conclude, I am in firm support of our stance to protect fiercely our national security and interests. I am also of the view that civil society needs space to flourish and grow as well, because the nature of interests, texture of advocacy and the tenor of the times will certainly shift as the years go by.

And as these shift, tension will surely exist now and then between new, seemingly disruptive ideas and the prevailing social norm. These may be seen as presenting a challenge to the existing good order of things initially. My hope is that the Ministry considers these factors with perspective and discernment where they apply. Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.

4.22 pm

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Societies (Amendment) Bill.

This Bill strengthens the regulatory framework, expands the power of the regulator and provides clarity on the registration and administration of societies.

The proposed changes will enable societies to function effectively while remaining vigilant to the vulnerabilities and threats that may affect the society, its members and beneficiaries. These regulatory measures are necessary to ensure public safety and security.

It is important to note that the need for regulation and oversight of registered societies goes beyond enforcing laws and norms. They act as preventive measures, deterring potential wrongdoers from engaging in harmful activities. By providing clear guidelines and enforcing consequences, regulations create a culture of accountability, discouraging individuals from taking advantage of others or exploiting loopholes for personal gain.

Mr Deputy Speaker, at this juncture, I would like to declare my involvement in societies as a board member, office-bearer and an advisor.

Sir, societies are valuable partners in our social service sector. Societies complement the Government's service delivery, foster civic engagement and play a crucial role in addressing social and economic issues, such as poverty, healthcare, housing and education. Their programmes and services can assist, improve the quality of life for vulnerable populations, reduce inequality and discrimination and promote social inclusion. We need to recognise and celebrate their contribution.

It is, however, also important to remember the increasing threats connected with societies and it is reasonable that the Government provide some level of regulation and oversight of societies. This regulation and oversight must, however, be proportionate to the need.

While I acknowledge the potential benefits of this expansion, I do have some clarifications and suggestions.

I note that the proposed amendments will require the Registry of Societies to give reasons for rejecting a society’s application to change its rules, name and place of business. The provision of clear and informative reasons will assist societies to better understand and comply with required rules and regulations.

The provision of separate registration routes reflects a risk-based approach. It assures societies ease of registration and also allows societies the option of opting for automatic registration based on their mandate and objectives. Considering that some societies may be of higher risk and some may represent little or no risk at all, the proposed changes will strengthen the Registrar's capacity to examine the registration of societies that may pose harm to public safety.

Apart from making further enquiry or requiring new societies to include specific rules in their constitution, may I suggest that selected societies be required to include a detailed description of their governing body or management committee and the stipulated duties of its members at the point of registration and for this information to be evaluated and audited. An example of a similar requirement can be found in the New Zealand Incorporated Societies Act 2022. That Act defines six specific duties for officers, including to act in good faith and in the best interests of the society and exercise reasonable care and diligence.

On that, may I check if the Ministry would consider introducing explicit whistle-blower protection programmes to inform members, volunteers and beneficiaries or the public to report suspicious activities without fear of retaliation?

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is commendable that Singapore has comprehensive guidelines and adopts best practices, including those suggested by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). This was explained yesterday at the Ministerial Statement on Singapore's Anti-money Laundering Regime. However, considering the complexity of fulfilling required financial obligations, may I suggest that those societies classified to be at higher risk of exploitation by bad actors be given additional support and guidance? May I also suggest including the requirement for key members to undergo mandatory training on rules, countering threats and vulnerabilities before setting up a society? This would also allow members to consider novel financial regulations, such as the use of smart contracts on blockchain platforms to automatically release funds or utilising blockchain technology to maintain an immutable ledger of financial transactions and activities.

Apart from financial issues, I am concerned about young people and vulnerable individuals joining a society and being groomed into engaging in undesirable or criminal activities. There is also the danger of members being victimised. This is a real threat, considering the proliferation of fake news, the ease of connectivity online and potentially negative influence arising from online gatherings. A society can be formed with all good intent, yet, over time, have their meetings infiltrated or influenced by new, sometimes anonymous, members and end up discussing or promoting dangerous or extreme topics of ideologies.

Another area of concern is related to technology and the formation of online groups on various digital platforms. It is harder to monitor and establish the underlying intention of such groups.

In view of the potential threats and challenges, would the Ministry consider providing online or other options to allow societies to ask questions and seek guidance and support about their compliance obligations?

Sir, legislation is just one aspect of control and we need to constantly educate the public for them to be aware of risks that may come from joining a society and engaging in activities organised by a society and from bad actors who may infiltrate a society. To promote responsible engagement and giving, it is important to share information with the public. Would the Ministry consider developing public awareness campaigns to educate volunteers and the public about the importance of supporting ethical and compliant society?

I am pleased to note that members of the public can search the database for registered societies. However, to access further details about the society, they need to purchase that information. Has consideration been given to the development of a free-access database that can provide greater information to the public? By providing a tool to search for information on societies, the public can make informed decisions and play a role in monitoring and reporting suspicious activities.

Sir, the changes suggested in this Bill affirm Singapore’s commitment to maintaining its global reputation for order and security.

I believe the amendments are a positive step, and regulations can help create a more just, ethical and inclusive society that benefits not only its members but the larger community.

In conclusion, notwithstanding the clarifications and suggestions I have raised earlier, I stand in support of this amendment Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

4.30 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Societies Act stands as an important measure in safeguarding the interests of Singapore. This Act, in its previous iterations and at present, ensures that groups with the potential for unlawful activities, threats to national security or activities contrary to our nation's interests, do not gain traction or growth within our borders. Notwithstanding, I have several clarifications on the Bill.

First, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must consider if allowing the Registrar to include or exclude specific clauses into a society's constitution before it is registered might be seen as excessive Government intervention in its internal workings. Furthermore, if the members of the would-be society find itself in disagreement with the clauses prescribed by the Registrar, what recourse do they have against the Registrar's decision? Likewise, in the event of a registration being denied, what avenues exist for societies to appeal such decisions? Is there also a timeline for appeals?

Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as we delve into the provision detailing the grounds that the Registrar can consider when evaluating applications for amendments in rules and names, as well as addressing concerns regarding foreign interference, several queries come to mind. Will the Bill provide a comprehensive list of considerations for societies to reference? Could there potentially be a reference guide or illustrative examples, akin to a "blacklist," to assist applicants in navigating this process with clarity?

Moreover, when the Bill references matters "contrary to Singapore's national security or interest", I wish to clarify whether this encompasses political societies or those with political affiliations. Would this entail the application of the Foreign Interference Countermeasures Act, or FICA, concerning the registration of such societies? In addition, how will this Bill regulate societies with foreign affiliations, particularly those with undisclosed intentions? Will societies be mandated to declare such affiliations before they are allowed to be registered?

Furthermore, it is critical to scrutinise transnational societies whose principal bank accounts may be situated in territories or countries that are known for being tax havens, such as the Cayman Islands, Bahamas or the British Virgin Islands. This heightened scrutiny is warranted to prevent potential cases of money laundering and tax evasion.

Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as we turn our attention to groups that are organised in virtual spaces, within chat groups and on the Internet, a set of unique challenges arises. Earlier, Member Assoc Prof Razwana Begum mentioned this as well. Are there plans to expressly address these societies under the Act? If so, what conditions will be set forth for their registration? Particularly, when these societies operate on a secure or private platforms provided by companies that are not governed by Singapore's laws, ensuring compliance in the digital realm becomes a complex undertaking.

It is important to address how the respective agencies plan to police this expansive digital landscape, given the evolving nature of technology. Laws, no matter how well-crafted, are only effective if they can be enforced. On this note, I would also like to inquire about the nature and extent of cooperation that Singapore has established or intends to establish with companies that provide digital services and products that allow online societies to form, specifically regarding the objectives of this Bill. Examples may be Telegram, Facebook groups and WhatsApp. Cooperation on a global scale is imperative to effectively address the challenges posed by societies operating in the digital sphere.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my last point is on administrative concerns. As we explore the proposal allowing societies that are also registered charities to submit their annual reports through a "one-stop" service, it brings to mind practical considerations. Will the Ministry establish an entirely new portal for this purpose or will it be seamlessly integrated with the existing MHA iROSES system?

Today, there are entities, such as religious organisations, that have the option to register both as societies and as charities. Is there an intention to streamline this process? Additionally, how do we educate the public about the appropriate steps to take in such cases?

Last but not least, it is essential to recognise that the workload on the Registrar of Societies, or ROS, will inevitably increase. This raises important questions about whether ROS will need to recalibrate its processes, potentially requiring additional manpower. How will ROS collaborate with the Police to share the workload and ensure seamless distribution of information?

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill was conceived to establish a framework for the regulation of societal activities, an imperative stemming from the historical context of combating illegal societies. As we reflect upon its implications in the present day, we are compelled to redefine our perspective on the types of societies that necessitate regulation in today's landscape, with the paramount goal of safeguarding our national security.

In this digital age, we must re-evaluate our approach to society regulation, acknowledging that many of these entities operate predominantly in virtual spaces, transcending national boundaries in an era of globalisation and digitalisation. Some may not readily disclose their true agendas, underscoring the need for a regulatory framework that empowers the Government to act swiftly and effectively when necessary. This involves not only implementing the necessary regulations, but also having the resources to monitor, as well as the levers to enforce the rules. Only through this holistic approach can we adequately address the challenges posed by societies in today's dynamic and interconnected world. I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.

4.37 pm

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

The Registry of Societies' website says that the earliest piece of legislation relating to societies was the Dangerous Societies Suppression Ordinance in 1869. It had the aim of eliminating secret societies in the Straits Settlement.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

But since then, the types of societies we see has expanded, as small ground-up initiatives and small groups come together and formalise – a society being seen as a simpler and more straightforward framework of governance and reporting, than say a private limited entity.

Based on a simple search in the past year between October 2022 and 2023, we have seen over 100 societies registered, serving various sectors, such as the community, hobbyists, arts and sports. Many form a dynamic part of our social fabric.

I have three brief points on the Bill.

Firstly, the amendments relating to the automatic registration route, which will now permit the Registrar to seek further information and reject an application in the event where the society, if registered, is, and I quote, "likely to be used for unlawful purposes or for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore, or contrary to Singapore's national interests or security."

Sir, the Automatic Route allows for expediency and administrative ease. It will appear to some that, given the amendments, perhaps we should have just one route that is non-automatic and the Registrar can ask the relevant questions if necessary. While it is, of course, critical for the system to have sufficient checks and balances and hold malicious actors accountable, and I agree with the overall ethos of the Bill, it is also important to communicate with potential applicants and ensure that their applications are not being pre-emptively concluded.

I understand that in the last five years, an average of five applications were rejected yearly. I would thus like to ask the Minister of State about the scope and interpretation of "purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order" and any key principles of those which are likely to be rejected and hope that this can be outlined for greater clarity.

Secondly, the Bill specifies the Registrar's ability to request certain societies to amend their rules as a condition for registration. Failure to do so can impede an application. Section 11A of the Societies Act outlines the grounds on which the Registrar considers for an application to change the rules – I understand that this would be similar to my previous point – would be contrary to Singapore's national interests or security, would be prejudicial to public peace, welfare, good order or contrary to the Act. However, these are fairly broad and it would be helpful if the Minister of State could provide greater clarity on the criteria. How far will the Government intervene in recommending the language or the rules to be included?

Thirdly, as we continue our digitalisation pursuit. I am also heartened to note the amendments which cater for the electronic transmission of service documents. Such amendments relate to enhancing convenience and bring greater accessibility. Further, I appreciate the implementation of a one-stop portal for societies, which are also charities, to submit their annual submissions in streamlining the process. Does the Ministry have a timeline, as many are looking forward to this one-stop portal? Organisations, such as the Singapore Cancer Society, Silver Ribbon Singapore and Cornerstone Community Services, are societies with charitable and social purposes that do a lot for our community here in Singapore.

Sir, one final point of clarity to ask the Ministry regarding office-bearers. It is important for societies to be governed well by their office-bearers. Are there any opportunities for office-bearers to receive governance training or any minimum age and experience required to be an office-bearer of a society?

On a small note, I also note that individuals with prior convictions may not be permitted to hold office in societies. Given our push in advocating for second chances – and many of us have seen the hard work and determination of ex-offenders who have turned over a new leaf and want to support others in turn, for example, as a desistor – what possibilities are there and channels for such individuals to become leaders of such groups, for a fair assessment of their suitability?

To conclude, Sir, many such organisations first start off as an informal smaller ground-up initiative and later put forth an application under this Act, because a form of formal recognition as a legal entity is helpful before they can access grants and funding for their organisation to be sustainable in the long term. Choosing to register as a legal entity, in this case, as a society, is no easy step as many of the members are volunteers with full-time jobs. It is crucial to ensure that the process is simple, efficient and friendly to encourage a thriving people-sector, where like-minded people passionate about causes, such as the environment, mental health and youth empowerment, can exchange ideas, advocate for their concerns and take action.

I hope more can be done on a wider level to support groups, such as these, who choose to take the step of registration, including potentially considering a new type of legal entity, for such cause-based ground-up initiatives. Notwithstanding the above, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Sun Xueling.

4.42 pm

Ms Sun Xueling: Mr Speaker, I thank the Members who spoke in support of the Bill. Please allow me to address their questions.

Ms Ng Ling Ling asked how the Registrar of Societies would assess whether an application, submitted via the Automatic Route, would pose risks to national security or public order, or be prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore. This assessment looks at many factors, such as the background of the applicants, the proposed activities of the society and the nature of their foreign affiliations. Where needed, MHA will consult other agencies.

Ms Ng asked whether non-specified societies will be directed to modify their constitutions if they are identified as engaging in causes that seem to discuss or promote issues aligned with a specific policy objective. The answer is yes, and the current law already allows us to do it.

Currently, under section 11A(2) of the Societies Act, the Registrar already has powers to direct a non-specified society to amend its constitution, if it is in the Registrar’s opinion that the amendments are needed to safeguard national interest, or public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore.

Ms Ng and Mr Yip spoke about the appeals for societies whose applications are rejected. Questions on how many appeals have been reviewed over the years by the Minister for specified and non-specified societies and on what grounds the appeals are granted by the Minister were asked.

Currently, non-specified societies are automatically registered and cannot be rejected. All appeals received by the Minister are for specified societies rejected through the Normal Route.

Over the past three years, we received four statutory appeals to the Minister. In assessing statutory appeals, the Minister will have to weigh the views of the applicants against the Registrar's. The grounds of acceding to or rejecting the appeal are fact-specific. Let me repeat that: the grounds of acceding to or rejecting the appeal are fact-specific.

Mr Gerald Giam asked why we need to amend the Automatic Route. MHA reviews its laws and regulations regularly to ensure that they remain up-to-date. These amendments are part of our regular review.

I would like to reiterate that there will still be two routes to register a society and, even with amendments to the Automatic Route, MHA expects the majority of the applications via the Automatic Route to be approved without having to make further inquiries. I can also assure this House that genuine applications under the Automatic Route will not face a longer waiting period for approvals than under the current regime.

Mr Giam asked if there were any applications that were approved via the Automatic Route that should not have been approved because they posed a threat. There were no applications that were automatically approved that we thought should not have been approved.

However, we have come across three applications that were submitted via the Automatic Route that triggered some concerns, as the applicants had some antecedents. For operational reasons, we seek Members’ understanding that we are not able to share more about these three applications and, for their own reasons which we do not know, the applicants did not pursue their applications.

Mr Giam also asked, instead of amending the Automatic Route, why not expand the Schedule to include more categories? We will still need to allow the Registrar to ask questions as we need to be able to assess whether the application does, indeed, fall outside the categories in the Schedule. Sometimes, the Registrar may not be able to assess based purely on the details submitted in the application.

Mr Giam suggested that questionnaires be built into the application form to help identify societies whether they should be submitted via the Normal or Automatic Route. This is already the process today. Applicants have to answer a set of questions as part of the application process. Based on their replies, the system will route to either the Automatic or the Normal Route.

However, as mentioned, there could be instances where the Registrar may need to make enquiries to ascertain whether the declarations were done correctly, for example, when the objectives in their draft constitution indicate a function covered in the Schedule, but yet their declaration indicated otherwise. In such a situation, the amendments would allow the Registrar to ask questions.

Mr Giam asked for examples of applications that were submitted via the Automatic Route but should have been submitted via the Normal Route. This happens once in a while. Applicants make incorrect declarations, though without ill-intent, that result in their applications sent via the wrong route. Let me give an actual example, but with the name redacted.

Currently, pugilistic or martial arts fall within the categories in the Schedule. Hence, applications for societies that deal with pugilistic or martial arts have to be submitted via the Normal Route. An applicant clicked "no" on the question pertaining to whether it is a martial arts group, thinking that it is a sports group. However, ROS reviewed the application and found that its constitution listed martial arts as an activity. ROS then moved it to the Normal Route instead.

Mr Murali Pillai highlighted the change from "shall" to "may" in section 4(1) of the Societies Act. Currently, section 4 of the Societies Act provides that the Registrar shall register a specified society upon application and payment of the prescribed fee unless one of the grounds for refusal in section 4 applies.

Currently, the prescribed fee is paid only upon approval of application. Hence, upon payment of the fees, the Registrar must – shall – register the society.

We are amending the Societies Act to state that the prescribed fee is be paid upon application, instead of upon approval. This means that, after the payment of fees, the Registrar might still refuse to register the society based on one of the grounds in section 4. Therefore, it is inaccurate to mandate that the Registrar must register the society upon payment of the prescribed fee.

To be clear, if none of the grounds for refusal in section 4 is made out, the Registrar will not refuse to register the society. Hence, the amendment remains aligned with Article 14 of the Constitution and the purpose of section 4, as stated by then Senior Minister of State Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee in 2004.

Mr Murali also asked about the ambit of the Registrar’s powers to mandate the inclusion or exclusion of provisions of the constitution of a specified society before registration. He further asked how this power will be exercised in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution.

To clarify, as mentioned in my opening speech, this is not a new power. This practice is in accordance with section 29(1)(b) of the Interpretation Act, which provides that a power to grant approval also includes the power to impose reasonable conditions. The amendment to the Societies Act simply makes this power explicit.

The Registrar’s discretion is not unfettered; his decisions must still have a nexus to Singapore’s security, public order or morality. Hence, even with the amendments, the Registrar’s powers must still be exercised in line with Article 14 of the Constitution.

To answer Mr Yip Hong Weng’s question on the recourse if there are disagreements on the rules being inserted, applicants can write to the Registry of Societies and we will consider each case on a case-by-case basis. If the Registrar refuses to approve their application due to their refusal to insert the rules, then the applicants can also appeal to the Minister within 30 days under section 4(4) of the Societies Act.

Mr Giam asked why societies discussing issues related to civil or political rights or the governance of Singapore society remain listed in the Schedule. These are sensitive issues and need to be appropriately handled by the society in order for it not to become a socially divisive one. In some cases, they could also be a channel for foreign influence into sensitive domestic affairs. Hence, societies that cover these areas should apply via the Normal Route. I would like to highlight that about 50% of applications go through the Normal Route – 50% of all applications to register a society go through the Normal Route – and the vast majority are approved.

Mr Yip asked for clarity on the list of considerations for amendments of rule and name. This is provided for in the amendments under clause 8 of the Bill, which listed the grounds of which the application to change name and rules will be rejected. Societies can also refer to the "Frequently Asked Questions" on the Registry of Societies' website for guidelines on amendments of rules and names.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum noted that the Bill would provide clarity on the reasons why applications to change names and rules are rejected. I wish to clarify that the amendments in clause 8 of the Bill list the grounds on which the Registrar can reject applications to change names or rules. It does not legally require the Registrar to provide reasons for rejecting the applications to change names or rules. Having said that, ROS will engage the applicants and advise, where appropriate, as long as it does not involve the disclosure of sensitive information.

We had several questions on the grounds of rejection.

Mr Giam asked how many applications to form societies were rejected in the past five years and what were the grounds for their rejection. On the grounds of rejecting an application for registration, Ms Nadia Samdin asked when the Registrar would consider an application to be prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order.

Ms Nadia also asked when the Registrar would refuse an application to amend the rules of a society on the grounds that it is contrary to national interests or security, prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order, or contrary to the Societies Act. Mr Murali also asked questions in a similar vein on how the powers based on these grounds would be exercised.

In the past five years, 53 applications were rejected. This is 3.7% of all applications received during this period. The grounds for rejection for those via the Normal Route are as stated in sections 4(2) and 4(3) of the Societies Act. For example, an application may be rejected if the society was likely to be used for unlawful purposes, or for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore, or that it would be contrary to national security or interest for the society to be registered.

The Registrar considers many factors in assessing whether an application should be rejected based on the grounds in the Societies Act and in the Bill. Let me give some examples.

Applications for registration may be refused where doing so is necessary to: prevent social segregation or religious and racial disharmony; safeguard Singapore against foreign interference; or protect public safety or Singapore’s security in general.

Applications to amend rules may be rejected if the rules would lead to a breach of the Societies Act or the Societies Regulations. For example, section 12 of the Societies Act prohibits a person from acting as an officer of a society if he has been declared unfit to hold office. If the amended rules would have the effect of permitting a disqualified person to act as an officer, the Registrar may reject the application.

Ms Ng and Mr Yip asked how this Bill will combat foreign interference through registered societies. We already have laws to protect against foreign interference through entities in Singapore, including registered societies and companies. In particular, FICA, which was passed in Parliament in 2021, will allow the Government to designate an entity, such as a registered society, as a politically significant person. Once designated, the entity will be subject to countermeasures, such as being required to disclose political donations and foreign affiliations. If there is a higher risk of foreign interference, the Government can also issue stepped-up countermeasures to impose stricter safeguards, such as disallowing foreign political donations, and foreigners from holding leadership positions.

On religious organisations, we amended the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act in 2019, to require religious groups to disclose foreign donations and affiliations and to be subject to local leadership requirements. We can also impose additional safeguards on religious groups if there is a greater threat of foreign influence.

Assoc Prof Razwana suggested that "selected societies" be required to provide more details on their governing body at the point of registration. I would like to reassure her that the Registrar can and will ask for more information, over and above what societies submit in the application forms, if the Registrar assesses a need to.

Dr Syed Harun recognised that the Bill strikes a balance between public safety and interests, while allowing the space for expression in the local communities. He also urged MHA to be discerning when making decisions on dissolving societies that have a long track record. I would like to reassure Dr Syed Harun that we will continue to strive to maintain a good balance in considering whether to dissolve a society.

Mr Yip asked about the one-stop service portal for charities. The intent of the portal is that it would provide a seamless integration between the charities unit and Registry of Societies systems. Ideally, charities which are also societies will go to one system for their Annual Returns submission. The details of the one-stop service will be worked out with Charities Unit later.

Mr Yip also asked if groups that are organised in virtual spaces within chat groups and on the Internet will be addressed under the Societies Act and the conditions for their registrations. In the Societies Act, a society includes any club, company, partnership or association of 10 or more persons, whatever its nature or object, except for groups that are already governed by other Acts, such as companies under the Companies Act.

Hence, groups that form in virtual spaces meet the technical definition of a society. That said, we have to take a practical approach: groups that are transient and informal do not fall under the ambit of the Societies Act.

Mr Giam asked if the amended Automatic Route would deter legitimate groups from registering as a society. I would like to share that groups can, indeed, maintain themselves as virtual groups or informal groups. However, without a legal entity, these groups cannot do things, such as open a bank account in the name of their group or rent a property in the name of their group for their activities. And this will likely constrain their ability to attract members.

Assoc Prof Razwana suggested that more resources and information, such as providing mandatory training on rules, countering threats and vulnerabilities, be given to societies which are at higher risks of being exploited by bad actors. She also mentioned the formation of online groups on various digital platforms and asked for support to guide them on their compliance obligations. The relevant domain agencies would provide such information. For example, there are available resources for societies to consider, such as the Terrorist Financing Risk Mitigation Toolkit developed by the Charities Unit. That said, we will take up Assoc Prof Razwana’s suggestion on how we can provide links to these resources on the ROS website. ROS is working on revamping their website and I have asked the team to incorporate Assoc Prof Razwana’s suggestion.

Assoc Prof Razwana also asked MHA to consider introducing explicit whistle-blower protection programmes to encourage and facilitate the reporting of “suspicious” activities. At this point, we do not think such measures are necessary. Individuals can already report “suspicious” activities to the Police and their identities can be protected. In particular, under section 127(1) of the Evidence Act, Police officers cannot be compelled to disclose where they got the information from as to the commission of any offence.

Assoc Prof Razwana raised concerns that vulnerable individuals, such as the young, may be susceptible to influence to engage in undesirable or criminal activities when joining a society and asked if there was any support to educate the public. Such education efforts would be undertaken by the domain agencies rather than the ROS. That said, if Assoc Prof Razwana has any specific area of concern, I will bring it back and convey her feedback to the relevant agency.

Assoc Prof Razwana suggested that the public have free access to information on societies. We are not contemplating this at this time as there are costs involved in maintaining a database and, for extraction of information, we currently impose charges to recover costs. For example, $10 will be charged for the online purchase of a society’s constitution.

Finally, we would like to thank Mr Yip for his concerns on the workload for ROS and the Singapore Police Force. We have established work processes between the two Departments and relevant information is exchanged where needed. We work together as one Home Team. That said, I thank Members for supporting the Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

5.04 pm

Mr Speaker: Clarifications for the Minister of State? Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for her detailed responses to my questions and for citing a real example where an applicant wrongly classified their route and ROS moved it to the Normal Route. Does this example not show that it is already possible for ROS to change the route of registration without this amendment to the Act?

Secondly, the Automatic Route was introduced by the Government in 2004. The Remaking Singapore Committee chaired by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan proposed this idea in 2003. Why was it deemed okay then but not now? And would the Minister of State agree that this is a reversal of some of the liberalisations introduced in 2004?

5.05 pm

Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for his questions. On the first point, indeed, if the application, technically, were to belong to the specified route, as in it is part of the list of the Schedule of Specified societies, the Registrar can move the application to the Normal Route. But there could be instances where it is not clear that the application falls within that Schedule of societies. Therefore, we will need to empower the Registrar to be able to ask questions and be able to then move the application to the Normal Route, if necessary.

On the second point, indeed, MHA had proposed and created the Automatic Route in 2004. That said, we will always have to review the current landscape and look at whether or not the current Act still allows us to stay relevant.

For instance, as many Members have cited, we have seen geopolitical tensions; we have seen the possibility of foreign interference through various entities. We will have to make sure that we have the levers and that societies are not used for purposes that are prejudicial to good order, security, peace and harmony in Singapore.

Therefore, we find it necessary, where there are questions as to the intentions of certain societies, to make available the levers and empower the Registrar to be able to ask questions to make sure that the societies are registered under the correct route. I, therefore, see the amendments we are proposing today as actually forward-looking.

Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications for Minister of State Sun? None.

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 Sun Xueling].

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

Mr Speaker: Leader.