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)
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.
Posted by ringisei | May 25, 2009 9:21 AM
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.
Posted by Lau Ah Pek | May 25, 2009 10:33 AM