The Foreign Donor Bogeyman
By The Void Deck on 24 May 2009 5:01 PM
Comments (2)

Presumably because NMP Siew Kum Hong was vocal about gay rights and AWARE's stress on gender rather than women's rights per se, his political adversaries shrewdly capitalised on allegations that he and Maruah accepted foreign handouts from a Swede gentleman, Johan Skarendal. Allegations to which Siew Kum Hong angrily denied and strongly objected to. His adversaries were clever enough to open that front to ignite the government's relatively justifiable paranoia, and the police report made by the NMP indicated that he knew enough of the seriousness of the allegations. The Yahoo lawyer categorically denied that he was involved in any inappropriate or illegal funding from the Swede, and by inference as Maruah members were there as well, Maruah was also not implicated in dubious funding, closing the case.

The government's fear of foreign funding of local politicians and activists is not unique. The UK has the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act forcing all parties to be transparent about their donations and outlawed foreign funding. The reasons were to prevent corruption and mitigate public cynicism related to the integrity of political parties and donor influence over politicians. However, other countries are even wary of their NGOs accepting foreign donations. Turkey and Russia are such examples. To be fair and understanding the realist realities of the world, the anxiety over the hidden agenda of foreign donations to political parties and NGOs are not unfounded.

Some foreign public and private philanthropies are designed as catalysts of political change in supposedly less democratic states. The objective of funding is to spur on "democracy" and the US' National Endowment for Democracy, which Dr Chee Soon Juan was a fellow in 2004, is a common example of missionary democracy and the need to convert "ignorant heathens" for their own good. However, at the other extreme, sounding the nationalistic klaxon, less progressive governments typically raise the ghoul of foreign intervention as an excuse to choke and isolate local politicians and activists within their borders. Perhaps the tentative balance is that politicians cannot accept any kind of foreign funding while activists can accept foreign funding as long as it is not directly or indirectly engineered by a foreign government. Perhaps.

Regardless if the recent Swede's visit was an innocuous one or not, it paved the way for further questions on what foreign donations political parties and activists can accept without detonating ethical and legal powder kegs. Who else besides Siew Kum Hong and some Maruah activists did Johan Skarendal meet as part of his Singapore itinerary is not public information. Arguably in the interest of the development of a civil society without a paranoid government taking every chance to jump at shadows and curb the honest work of activists, hopefully other parties that met the Swede are not naive and also followed Maruah's example of financial integrity and independence.

Comments (2)

Notice: Each writer on Singapore Angle is in control over the comment threads associated with his own posts, to edit or delete individual comments, or to close the thread as he pleases.

IANAL but it seems that it is not illegal for activists to receive foreign donations. See the definition of 'political associations' under the interpretation section of the Political Donations Act (Cap 236). IMHO it's got more potential to be a PR issue instead.

Hi Ringisei

IANAL! - I liked that disclaimer right at the start! The clear cut one is foreign donations to political entities. That is a clear No. The real debate perhaps is whether activists can receive foreign money. I think it is "why not", it is just a matter of how, who etc. Also, if there are no laws restricting foreign donations to local activists, based on their track record, the PAP might even pass a bill on it soon if they are that insecure. I hope they don't though.

Post a comment

Please refrain from signing your comment as "anonymous" or "anon": doing that makes it harder for others to refer to your arguments when responding (especially when more than one comment signed this way appears). Rather, make up a unique pseudonym. In addition, note that each writer on Singapore Angle is in control over the comment threads associated with his own posts, to edit or delete individual comments, or to close the thread as he pleases.

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

About this Post

472 words | Categories: Politics

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Singapore Angle is a group blog published since June 2006. Copyright to the articles is reserved to the individual writers unless otherwise stated.

All opinions expressed on this site by the authors are strictly expressed by the authors alone and remain the sole responsibility of the individual authors of each post; they are not representative of any third party, except where otherwise attributed and they certainly are not meant to reflect the views of the organizations which the authors are working for. Unless explicitly indicated, the authors neither endorse nor take responsibility for any information or opinion expressed by any third party in any comments, trackbacks or links external to this website. In addition, all of the articles are copyrighted to the individual authors unless otherwise indicated. If you are unhappy with anything you read on this site, please feel free to contact the editor and authors, we will see what we can do about it. (Find out more about us...)

Singapore Angle is powered by
Movable Type 3.34