Debated in Parliament on 5 Feb 2025.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn."
Question proposed.
Sir, I am ashamed that for so many years, decades actually, I have lived in ignorance. Ignorant that there was a refugee crisis right here in Asia and that so many people were suffering and needed help.
Singaporeans alerted me to this crisis and many of them are sitting in the gallery here in Parliament with us this evening. It was Chiew Tong, a student who was doing a documentary about the Rohingya refugees who first shared with me about the plight of refugees. This was more than nine years ago and I remember listening vividly to her as she spoke passionately about her school documentary project together with two other students Jade and Clarissa.
I visited them in Aceh while they were filming, and met the refugees and listened to their painful stories first-hand. But, Sir, painful does not actually sufficiently describe the stories I have heard. A huge part of me just cannot imagine the amount of pain the refugees must feel and the amount of suffering they have gone through.
In the refugee camp, I met Ayas. A little boy I will never forget. He is Rohingya and used to live in Myanmar. He was only eight years old when he, his 10-year-old brother and mother fled on a boat in 2015. The conditions of these boats were appalling. Sir, my daughter is 11 years old this year and I cannot imagine having to put her on a boat and flee like that.
Ayas' father had left on another boat and landed in another country earlier. They have since lost contact and he will probably never see his father again. As a father and a son, I cannot imagine how painful it must be, to be in this situation.
Ayas' mother was worried that they would die if they stayed in Myanmar any longer. And so, they too left and they spent at least three months on an overcrowded boat in the open ocean. Many lost their lives trying to flee on these boats. According to media reports in 2015, "People were thrown overboard as the refugees fought for their survival, according to accounts of one of the grimmest episodes to emerge in a spiralling humanitarian disaster in south-east Asian waters."
No one would put their children in a boat unless water was safer than land. Despite all the dangers, it did seem for the refugees that water was ultimately safer than land.
Ayas, his brother and mother finally arrived at a refugee camp in Aceh, and this is where I met him. I met this little boy who had his childhood ripped from him, who lost his father, lost his home, who survived an arduous journey where he almost died and probably saw other people die. But I also met a little boy who was so eager to learn, who had learnt English and wanted to practise it with me, a little boy who wanted a place he can call home. I was humbled by Ayas.
Ayas is one out of hundreds of thousands of refugees all trying to find some semblance of peace.
I met many more refugees, but nothing could really prepare me for what I saw, heard and felt in the refugee camps in Bangladesh. It is suffering on a scale and to a degree that I never could have imagined. The Bangladesh government is doing their absolute best in absolutely difficult circumstances, and they too need help.
In the Cox's Bazar region of Bangladesh, 656,000 Rohingyas, including 355,300 children, sought sanctuary in the past few months before my visit back in 2018. The numbers today are considerably larger.
During my visit, I also met some of the 36,373 children who lost at least one parent. A staggering 7,771 innocent little ones lost both mommy and daddy.
The numbers are staggering. But even more than the numbers, it is the individual stories I heard that broke my heart. I asked about the scar on the arm of a little five-year-old girl. Shockingly, it was a bullet wound. A child of five should not even know what a gun is, let alone being shot and hurt by one.
I saw a father weep as he spoke of watching his nine-month-old baby being stabbed to death. I sat down to listen to a group of women who were in tears as they told me how they were raped and how they watch their husbands and babies get killed.
I met a mother and her young children. They arrived at the refugee camp the same time that I arrived. I arrived on a mini-bus, but they had walked for weeks to reach the camp. Her husband was killed, and they hid in the forest in fear for days before walking for weeks to cross the border and find refuge in another country. There was just emptiness in her eyes. I just cannot imagine how she would explain to the little child she was carrying and an older child she was holding hands with, about what is happening. Where is daddy and why did they have to leave their home.
And I met a young man in the prime of his life at 22 years old who is facing up to a future without his entire family: all seven were killed. He was in tears as he showed me the video of the dead bodies. A video I wished I never watched and a video I will never forget.
We cannot erase the horrors these people have faced. But we can all do something to help to prevent their further suffering. Sir, this speech is not just about the refugees but equally importantly about Singaporeans like Chiew Tong, Jade and Clarissa who have devoted their time and energy towards this very worthy cause. Singaporeans who have responded to the call for help from the refugees. Over the past decade, I have had the privilege of working with many Singaporeans who are trying so hard to help the refugees. This speech is dedicated to all of them.
In 2016, I met Matilda, a young Singaporean who has spent the past decade speaking up, mobilising people and giving the refugees a voice here in Singapore. She mobilised a group of Singaporeans to go to Aceh to help the refugees and I joined that trip. I saw first-hand her passion, commitment and devotion towards this cause. I know it is not an easy cause to speak up for. It is an uphill battle, but Matilda has never given up.
She set up Advocates for Refugees (AFR) in 2015 and has gathered a strong group of individuals, all wanting to do more. She said, "AFR exists in Singapore because I believe that collectively we can do more from Singapore to rally support from within, to uplift communities in our neighbouring countries." She wanted to officially register a charity, but it is close to impossible to get charity status for an non-governmental organisation (NGO) working on a foreign cause.
Why should it be this way? Why make it so difficult for the younger generation to set up a cause here in Singapore and fight for what they believe in? To register as a charity, your organisation will need to meet the conditions set out in the Charities (Registration of Charities) Regulations: "Purposes of your organisation must be beneficial wholly or substantially to the community in Singapore."
I understand that we want the focus on Singapore but in the current charities landscape, we have plenty of charities focusing on the community in Singapore and I have no doubt they are here to stay. It is not a zero-sum game and we can and should have charities focusing on the communities in Singapore but also have some focusing on communities outside of Singapore.
My first recommendation for this Motion is that we amend our Charities (Registration of Charities) Regulations to allow the registration of charities whose purpose is not beneficial wholly or substantially to the community in Singapore.
It is AFR's 10th year anniversary this year – 10 years on, Matilda and AFR are still going strong. Imagine what more they can achieve with charity status.
Sir, I also met Yuan Siang, another young Singaporean who wrote to me in 2020. He was a final year law student and was trying to set up a scholarship programme for refugees. He co-founded a society named Monolith with his friends, Brandon, Xiaodan, Mark, Adriel, Chong Wei and Cheryl. They wanted to start a scholarship, which will cover the costs of the International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE) examinations, similar to our "O" levels, for about 80 to 90 refugee students.
Unfortunately, they ran into problems in getting the necessary permits. He submitted the application for a Fund-Raising for Foreign Charitable Purposes (FRFCP) permit in mid-August 2020 and after 2.5 months, the application was still being processed. The typical time needed to process an FRFCP is 30 days. Yuan Siang shared with me that he understood the need for due diligence and did his best to keep in touch with the person-in-charge.
He shared that, "We typically get a question every two to three weeks, to which we reply as quickly as we can, only to get another question two to three weeks later." He further shared, "it is hard not to get the impression that our application might be experiencing all this delay and scrutiny because we are trying to help refugees. With each day that passes, we get more worried that rejection is inevitable."
Sir, I too understand the need for due diligence but we should streamline the processes. Helping refugees, again, is incredibly difficult work, so why should we make it any harder?
I am sure the Government agrees. In an effort to keep the regulatory burden to a minimum and ensure a business-friendly environment in Singapore, Deputy Prime Minister Gan is already overseeing a "thorough and proactive review of our rules and processes, and prune them back where possible".
My second recommendation is that we streamline the process of applying for a Fund-Raising for Foreign Charitable Purposes permit and make it much easier to get.
My third and final recommendation is that we waive the 80:20 rule for all humanitarian causes and not just on a case-by-case basis. This is where 80% of the funds raised through a public appeal have to be applied for charitable purposes within Singapore. The remaining 20% of funds may be for overseas charitable purposes. In Yuan Siang's case, if he did a public appeal for a scholarship for refugees, it would not make sense to use only 20% of the funds raised towards the scholarship.
Why restrict our NGOs? The Government is providing funds to help firms internationalise and build capabilities to operate overseas. We should provide the same kind of support to organisations wanting to help other countries, to do good there. We should support our local non-profit organisations who internationalise, who fly the Singapore flag proudly overseas and who lend a helping hand to our neighbours. Let us be seen to not just venture into other countries to compete, to take, but also to give and to help.
Also, if members of the public want to donate to a foreign charitable cause, why should the Government make it difficult to do so? We should let the public, rather than the Government, decide on what and who people want to donate to. The Government should of course ensure there is due diligence and that funds collected are properly accounted for and audited. However, we should not stop or restrict Singaporeans from raising funds to help others in other countries.
Sir, in Yuan Siang's case, I spoke to the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), and I am glad they eventually approved his permits but with many conditions. Despite the difficulties, he was amazing and shared with me the impact of their efforts. Singaporeans supported him and he managed to raise $59,500 and awarded 48 scholarships to mainly refugees; 65% of the students managed to score four or more As in their IGCSEs.
One student shared, "Because of your generosity, I was able to fully concentrate on my studies. This scholarship instilled a sense of responsibility in me to perform better, to gain better outcomes and to ensure that the money put forward by the organisation and the donors do not go in vain. Besides that, this scholarship has boosted my self-esteem which will benefit me immensely in the future when I am continuing my further studies."
Yuan Siang hopes to continue his efforts, but he needs the support not just from fellow Singaporeans but also from the Government.
Before I end, I should stress that the Government does care about this issue and we have made progress, but as always, this housefly hopes that more can be done. I thank Minister of State Alvin Tan for meeting with the NGOs who are working hard to help refugees. In fact, he just met them about an hour ago. Again, I thank him for listening to their concerns first-hand and seeing how we can help.
I am also thankful that in Budget 2024, we announced that Singaporeans will be able to claim 100% tax deduction for donations to overseas humanitarian relief efforts, under a new scheme launched in recognition of people's desire to do good beyond Singapore's shores. The Overseas Humanitarian Assistance Tax Deduction Scheme (OHAS) will run for four years as a pilot, from 1 January 2025. But the issue is that the scheme is scoped so narrowly. To be eligible for tax deductions under OHAS, donations must be made through designated charities. These are the larger charities. We should not forget the smaller groups who do good work too.
Charities must also have emergency humanitarian assistance as part of their objectives to qualify. It is likely that the refugee cause that Matilda and Yuan Siang have been fighting so hard for will not be included in this scheme.
In conclusion, Sir, I hope that MCCY will one, amend our Charities (Registration of Charities) Regulations to allow the registration of charities whose purpose is not beneficial wholly or substantially to the communities in Singapore; two, streamline the process of applying for a Fund-Raising for Foreign Charitable Purposes permit; and three, waive the 80:20 Fund-Raising rule for all humanitarian causes and not just on a case-by-case basis.
Sir, in his email to me back in 2020, Yuan Siang shared with me that, "I have read on the news that you have been involved with and have given support for refugees. The fact that you have been able to speak in Parliament about refugees is something that has empowered ordinary people like us to believe that helping refugees is something we will find support for."
I should stress that there is nothing ordinary about Yuan Siang, Brandon, Xiaodan, Mark, Adriel, Chong Wei, Cheryl, Matilda, Chiew Tong, Jade and Clarissa. Many more NGOs like Jesuit Refugee Service Singapore, Relief SG, Singapore Red Cross and many more individuals, many of whom are sitting in the gallery, that also dedicate their lives towards this important cause. They are extraordinary Singaporeans who have chosen a difficult cause to fight for because they believe that everyone deserves a voice.
Sir, the refugees need their voices heard. This speech is unfortunately not one filled with happy stories. And the story of Ayas, the little boy I met at the refugee camp in Aceh, is unfortunately not a happy one as well and probably remains so. The last I heard, he is still in a refugee camp. He is now 18 years old and still does not have a place he can call home. Ayas, if you somehow watch this speech, know that many people continue to speak up for you here in Singapore and continue to do their best to help you.
Ayas does not have a say in his future but we do. And I sincerely hope we will support the efforts of fellow Singaporeans who are fighting so hard to help to rebuild the lives of refugees and help ensure that they too have a place they can call home and children can have a childhood that is not stolen from them.
I sincerely hope that we all remember that there is no us or them. Only us – one human family, connected in ways we sometimes forget. [Applause.]
Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.
Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Louis Ng for his passionate speech about the admirable efforts of fellow Singaporeans who have stepped up to help those in need overseas. His suggestions on how to encourage and facilitate their work reflect our underlying shared vision of a united people where we look out for one another and support those in need, at home or abroad.
I would like to address Mr Ng's suggestions by sharing our policy approach in balancing the needs and concerns of people in Singapore versus people outside of Singapore. Mr Ng spoke about the difficulties faced by non-profit organisations (NPOs) serving foreign charitable purposes in obtaining registered charity status in Singapore.
As Mr Ng rightly pointed out, one of the conditions for charity registration is that the purposes of the organisation must be beneficial wholly or substantially to the community in Singapore. Registered charities enjoy benefits such as income and property tax exemption and therefore, there is an expectation that the resources of charities should generally be channelled back towards helping the local community.
However, our regulatory framework is not so rigid that we are unable to work towards being a philanthropic hub and to recognise the benefits of our local charities in doing overseas charitable work. In line with Mr Ng's recommendation, the Minister today already has the discretion under the existing regulations to waive this condition on a case-by-case basis and has done so in the past.
In response to the Member's Parliamentary Question on a related topic last year, we shared that the Commissioner of Charities (COC) has granted charity status to organisations who obtained a waiver of this charity registration condition. Most of these charities are Qualifying Grantmakers who applied for charity status under the Grantmaker Scheme administered by MCCY.
Unlike typical charities, Qualifying Grantmakers are solely funded by an individual, family or institution and do not solicit for donations from the public. Given that these Qualifying Grantmakers are privately funded, they are regulated under a lighter-touch regime, with certain regulatory requirements, such as the requirement to substantially benefit the local community, waived. That said, Qualifying Grantmakers are still encouraged to apply some of their funds in Singapore.
The key then, is in striking a balance: a balance between allowing selected charities more flexibility to do overseas work and yet ensuring that the vast majority of our charities which are funded by donations from the public retain the focus on meeting local needs.
Mr Ng also spoke about the difficulties faced by NPOs in obtaining a permit to conduct fundraising appeals for foreign charitable purposes, such as the long processing time. We appreciate the understanding shared by Mr Ng on the need for due diligence on such fundraising appeals. The permit system and checks in place today serve to maintain public trust and confidence in fundraising appeals and protect donor interests. The COC's Office assesses the information provided by permit applicants to ensure that funds raised are used to support legitimate causes.
In the past three years, we have been able to process most applications within 30 days. However, some applications may need longer to process as they are more complex and involve higher risks. Relevant considerations include the target amount of donations, mode of fundraising appeals, location and background of the beneficiaries, track record of the fundraisers and compliance with the past appeals, just to name a few.
Nevertheless, we understand the pressing nature of permit applications for certain types of fundraising appeals, such as for those in support of disasters or other emergencies. Hence, the COC's Office takes a risk-based approach in assessing such applications and has been expediting most of these applications.
To streamline the process of applying for foreign fundraising permits, we encourage NPOs to engage and alert us on their fundraising plans early and submit permit applications with full disclosure and complete information to facilitate each review. Alternatively, NPOs may also choose to work with other charities or organisations that already have valid permits to support the relevant causes. NPOs will not need to apply for a separate permit if they do so.
We are always looking for ways to assist legitimate fundraisers in their charitable activities and welcome suggestions to improve our service delivery.
Mr Ng also suggested that we waive the 80:20 rule for all humanitarian causes. Mr Speaker, the intent of the 80:20 fundraising rule under the Charities Act is to ensure that donations from our Singapore public are used primarily to benefit locals and to address locals' needs.
The intent of this 80:20 rule remains relevant today. Recently, we received feedback suggesting to prohibit all local charities from conducting fundraising appeals for foreign charitable causes to focus our resources for the vulnerable in our society. This is but one example of appeals that we receive to manage the outflow of funds raised in Singapore.
However, the COC can and does, on a case-by-case basis, waive this rule, such as for appeals in aid of providing immediate disaster relief and for private donations raised for foreign charitable causes. I want to assure the Member that we do allow and support our charities and our organisations to raise funds for foreign charitable causes, but we are doing so in a measured manner.
In 2014, the COC granted a total of 71 permits for organisations to conduct fundraising appeals for foreign charitable purposes. [Please refer to "Clarification by Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth", Official Report, 5 February 2025, Vol 95, Issue 151, Correction By Written Statement section.] Of these, a large majority of fundraising permits had been granted the 80:20 fundraising rule waiver and this included private appeals and appeals for disaster relief efforts, such as for those affected by the Israel-Hamas conflict and other disasters.
The Member also expressed his hope for scope of the OHAS to be expanded. The OHAS is a four-year pilot recently launched only in January this year. In our previous replies to Mr Ng's past Parliamentary Questions on the OHAS, we explained the reasons for the current scope. The pilot was purposefully scoped to overseas emergency humanitarian assistance to strike a balance between encouraging overseas giving while ensuring that our local charity sector continues to receive the necessary support. This scheme is also administered through designated charities, which are: Mercy Relief Limited, Rahmatan Lil Alamin Foundation and the Singapore Red Cross Society, to ensure that the necessary governance and controls are in place so that donated funds go to verifiable and legitimate causes.
We are glad there is strong interest in this scheme and we are confident that it would encourage more Singaporeans to help those in need overseas.
Mr Speaker, we appreciate the Member's close engagement with NPOs on the ground to understand their evolving needs and challenges. Dialogue and feedback inform policy formulation and reviews, and we are committed to ensure that our legislation and processes remain relevant to the changing landscape of the charity sector in Singapore and the needs of our society.
Finally, we commend the dedication shown by these extraordinary Singaporeans highlighted in the hon Member's anecdotes: Yuan Siang and the Monolith team's work in providing scholarships; Matilda's work, both in Singapore and Aceh; and Chiew Tong, Jade and Clarissa's endeavour to shine the spotlight on lives that are silently crying out for help. Their efforts to help those in need overseas exemplify the values of compassion and generosity that our society holds dear. This Government shares this same goal, and that is to build a more caring and inclusive society and world.
Mr Louis Ng.
I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Could I just ask very specific questions? One, whether groups that are helping refugees will be able to get charity status? And two, I think he mentioned that when people are applying for the fundraising for foreign charitable purposes permit, some are considered as higher risk. Could he just confirm that helping refugees is considered a higher risk?
Mr Speaker, I mentioned that the Minister, today, already has the discretion to waive the condition and has done so in the past. Many actually are qualifying as grantmakers, and they have applied for and have been successfully approved for charity status under the Grantmaker Scheme.
Under this lighter touch regime, the key is that most, if not all, of the funds that are actually rallied or that are mobilised are private funds. So, in that sense, if you are going out to the public for appeals, you are going out to canvass on social media in the open for funds coming into a specific cause, then you do not qualify to be a part of this scheme. But I think, the short answer to Mr Louis Ng's question is that, yes, if you are canvassing for refugees overseas, you are not excluded from this exclusion.
Mr Louis Ng, we have just about three minutes before time is up.
I will use the three minutes, Speaker. Again, I just wanted to clarify. The groups that are helping the refugees do want to raise funds publicly. That is part of their activism. It is not just getting the money, but empowering people with the knowledge about the refugee crisis. So, they are not going to qualify for the scheme that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned. They are hoping to get charity status, just like any other organisation and continue and be able to raise funds overseas.
There is a second part of the question, which is the application for the fundraising for foreign charitable permit. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary had mentioned that for higher-risk causes, they will take longer time to evaluate the application. So, could I just ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether helping refugees is considered as one of those higher-risk causes?
I think to clarify what I have just said, Mr Speaker, I think that what I have mentioned in my speech earlier was that specific instances, especially in the case that the Member has mentioned in his speech, that of Yuan Siang and the Monolith's application, it was the first time that the team has actually put in an application and the Charities Unit team had to go through back and forth, with some hand-holding guidance, especially with regard to checks, background checks, that had to be made to maintain public trust and confidence in the entire fundraising process, to make sure that donors' interests are protected and to make sure that donors are confident that this is a legitimate cause that they are donating towards.
So, I think that is the angle for which I was coming from when I said that there were certain cases for which the process might be longer, not necessarily only higher risk cases.
*Question put, and agreed to.*
*Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn."*
Adjourned accordingly at 8.39 pm.
PAPERCUTS