Lee Boon Yang
Singapore
“6 The other guidelines are that there must be a post office sited within 5 km of every private residential estate and within 1 km of any commercial or industrial estate. MAID LEVY CONCESSION (Applications by the disabled) 32.”
“Madam, can I quickly respond to the point on assistive technology? Certainly this is an area of interest. We cannot say that we have the capability at this juncture but we will certainly look into what is possible and work with our ICT sector.”
“Nevertheless, if the spouse of the homemaker is working, he will be eligible for WIS if he satisfies the criteria. Husbands of homemakers are further eligible for tax relief.”
“Sir, I do not think it is quite correct to say that we always expect our own artists to perform for free or do public service. There are, of course, occasions where we do seek Singapore artists and arts companies to contribute to the national causes. For instance, when we went international for Singapore Season in China.”
“Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) what checks does the Ministry or the National Environment Agency have in place to prevent mistaken payments to hawkers who cease operations due to upgrading works at hawker centers; (b) how did the mistaken payment of $18,000 to Mdm Lee Ah Muey come about; and (c) what will the…”
“While it was also true that initially the reaction or the response of the licensing authority was that foreigners should not participate in such an event at the Speakers' Corner - because there is already an existing prohibition against any foreigners taking part in any activities at the Speakers' Corner - subsequent assessment resulted i…”
The complete record
Every one of 2,412 lines we hold for Lee Boon Yang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 41 of 49.
“He has not read out the entire Article 14 for the Members of this House. He did say, yes, restriction only for matters of national security. But if he had only read further down the particular Article, he would have discovered what I have said in my Second Reading speech as the reason for acting against organizers and participants of illegal assemblies and processions. Sir, I would like now to refer Members to Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14(1)(b) says: 'all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms;' But Article 14(2)(a) says very clearly, unambiguously: '(2) Parliament may by law impose (a) on the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament ...'. So the Constitution has clearly stated that Parliament may impose restriction on this right to assemble taking into account the necessity to maintain public order. So where is this contradiction with the Constitution? I think Dr Lee should apologize for saying that the Government is trying to enact a law which is unconstitutional. It is clearly not the case. Next, he went on to say that under the existing Minor Offences Act, the Police have the power to make rules and regulations regarding assemblies and processions, and now the power is given to the Minister and there is a political intention behind it. It is another example of how he is trying to mislead Members in this House.”
“But from 20th January to 7th February, that is after the Bill was first read in Parliament and then publicized, the number dropped to 10 only. So it would seem that this enhanced penalty has a deterrent effect. Dr Wong asked whether Government will amend the Trade Marks Act to deter vendors of counterfeit goods. In my reply to his question for oral answer, I assured him that this matter is indeed being looked into. The Ministry of Law is indeed looking into amending the Trade Marks Act to enhance the penalty for people who sell counterfeit goods or make these counterfeit goods. Sir, I now turn to the Non-Constituency Member, Dr Lee Siew-Choh. I am afraid Dr Lee Siew-Choh has spent the better part of his speech touting counterfeit ideas. And indeed if he is not careful about his practice of touting such counterfeit ideas, he may well end up facing heavier penalties out there on the street, instead of in this Chamber. Why is he touting counterfeit ideas? He says that the Government is trying to smuggle in provisions to restrict, to suppress Opposition political parties. I have already said in my Second Reading speech that nearly all the provisions in this amendment Bill concerning assemblies and provisions are not new. They are all in the existing Minor Offences Act. The only new provision is the creation of an offence for people who knowingly participate in an illegal assembly or procession. So there is no question of trying to smuggle in something under the guise of taking action against touts. It is merely to update the provisions. He says that this Bill is against the Constitution, citing Article 14 of the Constitution - the rights of Singaporeans to participate in an assembly. I think Dr Lee is being unfair to Members of this House.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I must, first of all, thank all the Members who rose in support, unqualified support, of this Bill. Some of them have raised questions. I will try to answer these questions. Mr Zulkifli asked whether the Bill will affect sales promoters in department stores and door-to-door salesmen. It is not the intention of this amendment to act against door-to-door salesmen or in-store promoters. The offence of touting only relates to soliciting in a public road, public place or place of public resort, as spelt out in the Act. It would not affect legitimate bona fide businessman or salesman carrying out his business in his own private premises, making sales approaches to his customers in his premises. It will certainly not affect promoters in department stores. Will it affect door-to-door salesmen? It is also not the intention to deal with door-to-door salesmen. Because in most instances if a householder feels that a door-to-door salesman is getting too aggressive, he can easily close the door and therein the matter ends. But, of course, if you come across one of those cartoon strip-type of salesman who is indeed very nasty and persistent and is carrying out his activities on a public road, then the law can be applied. But I should say that this will be very rare. Mr Zulkifli also asked whether enhanced penalties are sufficient. I think, to a large extent, Dr Wong Kwei Cheong has provided the answer in the sense that since the Bill was first read in Parliament on the 19th January and publicized the following day, there has been a significant decline in the number of touting incidents along Orchard Road, in particular. Police have told me that between 1st and the 19th January, there were 80 touts arrested.”
“It is necessary to revise these penalties upward to ensure that they continue to deter would-be offenders. The Bill also seeks to update certain obsolete terms and repealed some obsolete provisions in the existing Act. Lastly, Sir, the short title of the Act will be changed to the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“The Bill also empowers the Magistrate to issue an Order against the person responsible for the nuisance. Such Order will require the offender to abate the nuisance or prohibit him from repeating the offence. Any contravention of the Order will result in a fine of up to $2,000. Sir, I now turn to the amendments relating to provisions covering assemblies and processions. Let me stress that most (nearly all) of these provisions can be found in the existing Act. Police have to regulate assemblies and processions because we live in a densely populated country. Our streets are crowded with people and vehicular traffic. Regulation is solely to ensure that public order is maintained and to prevent congestion and annoyance caused by assemblies and processions held by all kinds of groups and organizations. Sir, in 1986 there were only seven illegal processions. In 1987 the number rose to 16 illegal processions. And last year 1988, there were 32 illegal processions. This situation cannot be allowed to deteriorate further. Under the existing Act, only the organizers or those assisting in any illegal assembly or procession are liable for prosecution. This Bill only enhances the penalties for those who organize any illegal assembly or procession. It also pro- vides for a new offence for those who knowingly participate in such illegal assemblies or processions. Participants will now also be liable to prosecution. The enhanced penalties and new provision are necessary to curb the increase in illegal assemblies and processions. Sir, the Bill also seeks to raise the penalties for all offences in the Act. Most of the penalties which range from $20 to $2,000 have not been revised for more than a quarter century.”
“Fourthly, their tactics put nearby law-abiding shopkeepers who are conducting their business properly in a serious disadvantage - tourists who might have been customers of these law-abiding shopkeepers are scared off by the aggressive, abusive and almost threatening tactics used by the touts. It is therefore necessary to make touting in any public road, public place or place of public resort an offence. More deterrent penalties are also needed for Police to act effectively against the touts. With this amendment, the penalties for offenders will be brought up to a fine ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 or imprisonment of up to six months or both fine and imprisonment. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction, the offence will carry a fine ranging from $2,000 to $10,000 or imprisonment which may extend to one year or both fine and imprisonment. Sir, I believe that these penalties will make persons involved in touting stop their activities. Sir, I now turn to the provisions relating to noise pollution. The provisions in the Minor Offences Act are outdated for today's circumstances. They are also inadequate to deter people from making excessive noise. I need not elaborate on the problem of noise pollution as Members have raised the issue in Parliament on a number of occasions in the past. Most of us, as Members of Parliament, have at one time or another been asked by our constituents to intervene in cases of noise nuisance caused by inconsiderate people in the HDB estates. This Bill therefore seeks to enhance the penalty for noise pollution to a fine of up to $1,000 and to allow victims of such nuisance to complain directly to a Magistrate's Court about noise nuisance.”
“' Sir, more recently the Police arrested three touts for causing a public nuisance. They were charged in court and convicted. After their conviction, on the way out of the court house, they chased a press photographer around the premises of the Subordinate Courts. They intimidated the press photographer wanting to get hold of the roll of film. The press photographer had taken some pictures of these touts. Of course, these three touts were promptly rearrested by the Police and they were charged for criminal intimidation. They were found guilty and fined $2,000 each. Despite the fine, one of them resumed his touting activity the very same day. Sir, these examples show that touts have no respect for the law and are totally unrepentant about their unlawful activities. Why is it that we must take action against the touts? Why not just let them be? The answer lies in the kind of letters that the Tourist Promotion Board and Police have been receiving from tourists and from Singaporeans. Touts give Singapore a bad name. And if the problem is not checked, tourists will eventually avoid Singapore. Secondly, even Singaporeans find them a nuisance, not only Singaporeans who are accompanying foreign visitors. Many of our Singapore Indians walking along Orchard Road have been mistaken to be well-heeled tourists from Delhi and are accosted by touts; similarly, Chinese and Malay Singaporeans who have the slightest resemblance to tourists are fair targets for harassment by the touts. Thirdly, their tactics are a clear breach of the law, not only because they sell counterfeit goods but in their persistent harassing, including physical manhandling of pedestrians and shoppers.”
“In fact, touts are becoming bolder, more brazen and even openly resorting to lawlessness. Sir, I have here a collection of letters that were written by tourists and Singaporeans to complain against the activities of touts. I would like, with your permission, just to read some extracts from three of these letters to put into proper perspective this problem of touting. The first letter is from a Swiss tourist to Singapore. It starts off by saying that he was very impressed with the friendliness, efficiency and the economic development in Singapore. Then he went on, and here I quote, Sir: 'From the tourist point of view, there is however a black spot which may eventually impair your country still excellent reputation.' He then went on to describe his encounters with touts. And here I quote again: 'It was even sometimes difficult to keep these gangs at bay as we were almost physically assaulted by them.' Sir, the second letter came from an English tourist. This was addressed to the Minister of Tourism Government of Singapore. And here I quote, Sir: 'However, I believe I have a valid criticism to put forward. My bride and myself [the tourist was here on his honeymoon] enjoyed our 7 days in Singapore. It was spoilt every time we ventured out in and around Orchard Road to be accosted every 20 yards by a young gentleman saying, "Do you want a copy watch?" And now, Sir, I wish to quote an extract from a letter written by a Singaporean who had a close encounter of a "tout" kind. This young Singaporean had brought some Japanese business friends to a popular food centre. And I quote: 'We encountered imitation watch touts. Two of them harassed my friend and me. And when I told my friend not to buy from them, they threatened to beat me and threw cigarette butts at me.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill seeks to amend the Minor Offences Act mainly to deal with the problem of touting. The opportunity is taken also to amend certain provisions concerning noise pollution, assemblies and processions and to revise the penalties prescribed for the offences covered by the Act. The problem of touting has existed in Singapore for many years. It is not a new problem. However, it has recently escalated and become a serious problem especially in areas frequented by tourists, such as along Orchard Road. The main reason for this upsurge is due to the sale of counterfeit goods by some shopkeepers. These shopkeepers employ touts to solicit and importune tourists to buy their goods. To counter this problem, Police has been conducting regular enforcement actions against touts. From July to December 1988, 157 touts were arrested and charged in court. For the month of January 1989, 76 persons have been arrested and charged in court. Those arrested have been dealt with under the existing provisions of the law. Presently, the Minor Offences Act defines the offence of touting only in relation to activities connected with the court and government departments. Touting, unconnected with such public offices, is not an offence at present. Those arrested can only be charged under the Penal Code for causing a public nuisance for which the maximum penalty is only a fine of $200. Our experience has shown clearly that existing laws are inadequate in controlling the problem. When the profits from the sale of counterfeit goods are high, such small fines as $200 under the Penal Code obviously can- not act as effective deterrents.”
“They are more conscious of the need to keep their premises clean and to observe proper food and personal hygiene. Standards of cleanliness and hygiene in food centres have generally improved. My Ministry takes a serious view against recalcitrant food vendors who are indifferent to hygiene standards. Food vendors must understand their role and responsibilities. The Ministry is currently reviewing the Environmental Public Health (Food Establishment) Regulations and one of the amendments to be made will be to increase the penalties. Mr Speaker, Sir, stiffer penalties, the risk of losing one's licence or having it suspended, in addition to the adverse publicity generated, would deter restaurant operators and other food vendors from unhygienic practices. Mr Chin Harn Tong (Aljunied GRC): Sir, will the Senior Parliamentary Secretary list out the names of the five restaurants which have been given demerit points, and also the names of the snack bars whose licences have been suspended? Secondly, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary explain why an established Mayflower Peking Restaurant was given light penalty by the court recently for its food hygiene violation? And the third supplementary question: can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary assure this House that in future, violation of this nature will be given more severe penalty?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as at 31st December 1988, 11,467 out of a total of 66,298 (or 17.3%) of all tenants of HDB flats were in arrears with their rental. The arrears amount to a total of $2,560,369. 86.2% of the arrears cases involved tenants in 1-and 2-room flats. For a further breakdown of the arrears according to the size of flats, I have prepared a table (Cols. 713 - 714) which the Clerk of Parliament has circulated to Members. table - BREAKDOWN OF RENTAL ARREARS BY FLAT TYPE (Cols. 713 - 714) HAWKERS PENALIZED UNDER THE POINTS DEMERIT SYSTEM 3. Mr Chin Harn Tong asked the Minister for the Environment (a) how many hawkers in food centres have been penalised under the Points Demerit System since its inception up to the latest convenient date; (b) which food centres have the greatest number of offending hawkers; and (c) whether he is satisfied that the scheme has improved the conduct of hawkers. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment (Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng) (for the Minister for the Environment): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister. Since the implementation of the Points Demerit System on 14th September 1987, a total of 660 hawkers in hawker centres, 121 stallholders in eating houses, 37 snack bar operators and five restaurant managements have been given demerit points. So far, six hawkers and three snack bar operators have had their licences suspended for two weeks. Another six cases involving hawkers are pending suspension. The hawker centres with the greatest number of offenders are the Telok Ayer Transit Centre, Cuppage Road Market, Golden Mile Food Centre, Newton Food Centre and Berseh Food Centre. I am satisfied that the scheme has improved the awareness of food vendors in general.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I give no such undertaking. The gazetting of the Bill and the bringing into operation of the powers contained in this Amendment will be dealt with under the normal procedures. The Bill will have to be sent to the Presidential Council for Minority Rights and it would then have to go to the President for the President's Assent before it can be gazetted as a law. That takes some time and it is the usual time. 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. - [Dr Lee Boon Yang]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng] Adjourned accordingly at Fifteen minutes past Four o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.”
“Sir, a minimum three-stroke penalty means that would-be illegal workers would be left in no doubt at all as to the consequences of violating our immigration laws. It will be very clear to all that a certain minimum punishment awaits them. And it is for this reason that we believe that a minimum penalty is necessary. We want to deliver a clear signal: Don't come here to try your luck with breaking our laws and don't come here to try your luck with our courts hoping that you could get off with a light penalty. This is the very minimum penalty that you can expect if you decide to come here to break our laws. Sir, I believe that this is the only way to deter such people and to avoid the social consequences of having a large number of illegal aliens in our midst. Sir, I believe I have dealt with most of the reservations and comments raised by Members.”
“They are people who are poor, who come here trying to make some money; they are not about to part with those hard-earned dollars. Heavier fines, if imposed, will then end up having to be commuted to a longer imprisonment term with the undesirable consequences which we are all aware of. As my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry has mentioned, some of the immigration offenders whom we have locked up in our prisons have been known to find our prisons comfortable and the food that they are getting much better than the food they were used to get at home. So as a result imprisonment is not at all an effective deterrent. So the point here is that we are facing a serious problem, a problem which cannot be dealt with by the usual approach. We have to deliver a very clear signal to would-be immigration offenders that we will not tolerate such violations. For this reason a short prison term of three months and caning with three strokes is considered the minimum needed to have an effective deterrent effect. Earlier on the Non-Constituency MP, Dr Lee, brought up acts of vandalism. Prior to 1966 vandalism was very much on the rise causing a great deal of public money to be spent on cleaning up after the vandals and repairing the damage caused by them. In 1966 mandatory caning with three strokes for persons convicted under the Vandalism Act was introduced. There was a significant reduction in acts of vandalism after caning was introduced. Dr Lee testified to that earlier. As a result, Sir, Singaporeans today are able to enjoy a clean garden city environment despite having 86% of the population living in congested high-rise public housing estates. This would not have been possible if we had not taken a tough stand against vandals.”
“Offences under the Arms Offences Act, Misuse of Drugs Act, and certain sections of the Penal Code are also punished with mandatory minimum caning. I would like to remind Members that not all immigrant offenders are subjected to caning under this amendment. Earlier on, in response to a point raised by the Member for Fengshan, I have pointed out that in section 15(3)(a) of the Immigration Act, for those who overstay less than 90 days they face a lighter punishment. So what are the alternatives to deal with long-term overstayers who deliberately break our laws, come in illegally and those who overstayed more than 90 days? Please, be quite clear on this. We are not talking about the occasional overstayers who overstayed for a period of a few days or a few weeks, relatives from Malaysia who happened to have overlooked renewing their social visit pass for one or two weeks. These are not the people we are concerned with. We are concerned with people who come in, hidden in the bottom of a sampan, in the boot of cars, or by some other yet undetected means to deliberately break our laws. So what are the alternatives that can be considered to deal with this problem? Increase the prison sentence beyond the current two-year maximum provided by the Immigration Act? That is one alternative. However, if we do so, we will end up with more immigration offenders in our jails. As I have mentioned earlier, they already make up 17% of our prison population. Dr Tan has pointed out that it cost $10 million, $9.4 million to be more precise, to maintain this group of prisoners. So increasing the prison term will only place an intolerable strain on our prison system. We can increase the fine. But immigration offenders are unlikely to pay the fines.”
“The figures I have given Members in my Second Reading speech prove that the trend is upward, and if nothing is done it will get worse. Hence we have taken this incremental step, as he has called it. Sir, I now come to the point that has been taken up by most of the Members, that is, the additional penalty of mandatory caning with a minimum of three strokes. Some Members have asked: why make it mandatory, why not leave it to the discretion of the judges? Others like the Member for Ayer Rajah have asked us to consider what will happen to all the thousands of Singaporeans who travel abroad. I believe he is concerned that Singaporeans travelling abroad may have to face the wrath of somebody who has been caned by the Singapore Government. Well, we should not allow ourselves to be held to ransom. If foreigners choose to come to Singapore and blatantly break our laws, should we take a soft approach to them, pack them off nicely and say, "Please, don't do it again and leave our Singaporeans whom you encounter in your home country in peace." No, that cannot be, Sir. Anyone who comes to Singapore and chooses to break our laws must face the penalties. This is the law of the land. Likewise, any Singaporean who goes abroad, if he chooses to break the laws of the countries that he is visiting, he will have to face those penalties imposed by the law in that country. Sir, let me come back to this question of mandatory caning. I must, first of all, point out that there are many precedents in our law to provide for a mandatory minimum caning. For instance, we touched on that earlier on, the offence of vandalism. The penalty for acts of vandalism is a minimum of three strokes.”
“Sir, some Members have also pointed out that the traffickers who bring in all these illegal workers, illegal immigrants are just as much to be blamed, and that they should also be dealt with severely. In this amendment we have introduced some new provisions, but it does not mean that we have overlooked the offences committed by the traffickers. There are provisions in the Immigration Act as of now which deals with the offence of trafficking. Let me point out to Members section 57 (1)(c) spells out the offence of illegally conveying aliens into Singapore. The penalties are imprisonment for a term not less than two years and not more than five years and a fine not exceeding $10,000 and caning. So under the current Act caning is already provided for traffickers. Therefore, traffickers now are being dealt with more severely than illegal immigrants, overstayers and employers. Even before this amendment, the punishment for traffickers may be more severe. Let me give Members an example. The Straits Times reported on 14th January that the boatman convicted of smuggling illegal immigrants into Singapore was sentenced to four years jail and 18 strokes of the cane. His sampan and motor were confiscated. Sir, I believe that existing penalties are sufficient to deal with traffickers. Sir, the hon. Mr Loh Meng See suggested that the move towards mandatory caning could be just an incremental measure being undertaken by the Govern- ment. He is correct in his assumption because two years ago we had already considered introducing mandatory caning to deal with the problem. But we have decided to watch how the situation develops. Is it going to improve on its own with the existing penalties or do we have to take sterner measures to deter these illegal immigrants?”
“49), section 8(3) which states: 'Any person who is the tenant, lessee, occupier or person in charge of any public place which is used for gaming shall, unless the person proves that he has no knowledge that the premises are used for gaming, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $20,000 and not more than $200,000 and shall also be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.' Sir, the presumption is not an unreasonable imposition of guilt on occupiers. First, the arrested foreigner must be an immigration offender. In other words, an overstayer or someone who has come into Singapore illegally. Secondly, the immigration offender must be caught on the premises with possession of tools or implements or engaged in some activities which can be construed as working. Only when these conditions are met will the occupier be presumed to have employed a foreigner. Sir, in effect, the amendment places a duty on all occupiers and employers to check the passports of prospective foreign employees. It is the duty of all employers to ensure that foreign employees are in possession of valid work permits and that no unauthorized persons should gain access to their premises. Here, Sir, I would like to address a point brought up by some Members that some employers may have been misled by forged documents. In such cases, then it is a defence which the employer can use. It is an argument in the favour of the employer to say that he has been misled and I am sure if the immigration investigators have this fact and if it can be ascertained that the documents were such good forgery as to be able to mislead an average person, then the employer will not be charged.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it would be an over-simplification just to say that they had no choice. All Singaporean employers have a choice, as the Minister for Labour has said. In fact, some of those who have been caught employing illegal workers are in sectors which have been given work permits liberally. The Member for Paya Lebar also asked whether caning will be effective since caning is not allowed for females, those under the age of 17 and those above the age of 50. I understand that most of the illegal immigrants who are caught on the worksites are able-bodied young men within the age limit where the law can apply. He also sought reassurance on clause 5. In his view, it is vague. The presumptive power that is contained in clause 5 may be abused. Sir, the presumption introduced by clause 5 is not a departure from established practice. There are similar provisions against occupiers of any premises which are involved in illegal activities and these presumptions can be found in many other legislations. Let me give you some examples: the Arms Offences Act, the Betting Act and the Common Gaming Houses Act. Let me just quickly refer to two of these Acts for the specific examples. In the Arms Offences Act (Cap. 14), section 9 states: 'Where any arm is found in or on any premises, the occupier of such premises shall be deemed to be in possession of such arm unless he proves that some other person was in possession thereof, or that he had no knowledge or reasonable means of knowing that such arm was in or on such premises and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such arm being kept in or on such premises.' So a presumption is already in existence in this particular law. Let me refer him to the Common Gaming Houses Act (Cap.”
“We cannot allow employers to make a mockery of our immigration and employment laws for their own interests. As regards the labour policy, may I suggest that the Members take it up with the Minister for Labour separately. He is the most appropriate person for you to direct your eloquent pleas and cogent appeals.”
“However, the shortage of labour is no justification for deliberately breaking our labour laws and immigration laws and for encouraging and enticing foreigners to blatantly violate our laws. Such violations cannot be tolerated. Sir, let me give the Member two examples from another aspect of maintaining public order and safety. As Members of Parliament, we are all aware - we have heard this complaint before - of people who urinate in the lifts in public housing estates. Sir, the absence of a nearby toilet is no justification for a person to use an HDB lift as a toilet. This problem of urinating in the lifts in our public housing estates cannot be condoned. It must be eradicated. How can we achieve this objective if every offender gets off by pleading that nature's call was beyond his or her control and that the lift was the nearest solution? The second example, Sir, in order to get a driving licence, every learner driver has to invest some money, some time and effort to acquire sufficient driving skills to pass the test. If the person does not have the money or lack the skills, he will not pass the test and he will not be issued with a driving licence. Such a person cannot disregard the law and proceed to drive a car without a licence just because he needs the convenience of a car. Otherwise, how can the Police ensure the safety of all roadusers? Sir, these examples show that people must not disregard laws that are made for good reasons to serve the common good. Anyone who disregards our laws must be dealt with accordingly. Just as it is no excuse to plead that nature's call was urgent or there was a pressing need to drive, employers cannot resort to illegal workers because their applications for foreign workers were rejected.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, that is a matter of opinion. I think it is a social problem to have people defacing public property, damaging public property, even stealing insulating oil from electrical substations. The main thing is that we look for a remedy that is effective. Caning is effective. Let us apply it to deter the would-be offenders. He makes a very impassionate plea for all these innocent people who are trapped in this illegal immigration offence which my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry, has amply disposed of. Let me just point out that they are not innocent offenders of our immigration law. If, as Dr Lee has said, they paid a great deal of money to acquire forged documents, how is it that they are prepared to pay this sum of money without knowing that they are doing something that is wrong? Surely they must be aware of the fact that the documents they are obtaining are obtained illegally. Otherwise, it would not cost such vast sums of money. Sir, next I would turn to the Member for Paya Lebar, Mr Philip Tan, who has spoken on the problem of employers who are faced with a labour shortage. My colleagues have dealt with the labour policy aspect. Let me take Members through the law enforcement aspect. As I said in my Second Reading speech, the number of illegal workers in Singapore is indeed related to the demand for their service. The more the demand from employers, the more will come. The problem is not just that of the foreigners alone. Singaporeans are contributing to the growing numbers of illegal workers here by attracting them and by giving them employment, and some by giving them shelter.”
“In fact, what he described about the activities of the vandals in the early 60s precisely proves the point that caning is necessary if you want to put a stop to a social problem. I am sure Dr Lee can recall that prior to 1966, Singapore was plagued with vandalism.”
“The Member also asked for more publicity to employers and interested organizations. Yes, certainly my Ministry will keep all employers informed of these amendments. There is sufficient press publicity which should be ample to keep people informed of the changes that are being made. Dr Ho Tat Kin has made a point, which I think other Members have also made, that first-time offenders should not be caned. Sir, I will come to this question of caning which has been taken up by several Members separately. I will first deal with the aspect that first-time offenders should not be caned. I think we have to be careful here. It is a persuasive argument. First-time offender, why cane him? But it is thoroughly fallacious. Why so? Because here we are trying to put in place a penalty which will be a sufficient deterrent for future immigration offenders. We are dealing with a situation where these people come from countries with vast populations, 40 times or more than our population here in Singapore. So if you say that every first-time offender is given opportunity to get off lightly, you will never solve your problem. There will always be first-time offenders. When will you reach the end of the queue to start hitting on the second-time offenders? New people can always come in. Traffickers can always bring in people who have never been here before and there are plenty of them. So I think that approach will not work. If we want an effective deterrence, it has to be applied at the first offence. He also suggested that the employer should be asked to pay for the cost of maintaining arrested overstayers and illegal immigrants in the prison. That suggestion can be considered. We can look into it. Sir, next I come to the NCMP, Dr Lee Siew-Choh, who objected strongly to mandatory caning.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if they surrender themselves now, they will be dealt with under the current provisions. Let me draw the Member's attention to section 15(3)(a) of the Immigration Act which is not being amended, Sir. It says: 'Any person who without reasonable cause contravenes this section [unlawful entry or overstaying] shall be guilty of an offence and - (a) in the case where he remains unlawfully for a period not exceeding 90 days shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both;' That means the court will have the discretion. There is no mandatory imprisonment here. It may well be that should they all turn up in droves to surrender, the court will deal with it expeditiously by way of a fine and then send them off. That is up to the discretion of the court to decide. The Member for Fengshan, Dr Arthur Beng, also asked who will be responsible. He spoke about a complicated situation, particularly in the worksite and construction site. Who actually will be involved? Sir, the specific person to be charged in each case will depend on the available evidence. For example, if evidence of payment exists, the person who makes the payment will be charged. Depending on what is uncovered during the investigation in each case, the sub-contractor, the site contractor or the main contractor of the building site may be charged. The Member suggested that we consider printing a caution on future work permits about the enhanced penalty of caning for overstaying or illegal working. We will consider this. Of course, that would have to be referred to the Minister for Labour for his consideration whether it can be included in the work permit or not.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is exactly what I say. For those who are already here - overstaying, breaking our law - my advice to them is surrender now to the authority, you will be dealt with under the current law. And the current law says that for those who overstay for less than 90 days, in fact they will not be sent to jail, a fine can be imposed. Jail sentence is not mandatory and they can be dealt with appropriately. That is already in the existing law. It is only if they overstay 90 days that under the current law it is mandatory jailing of six months up to a term of maximum two years.”
“Ample warning of the new caning penalty has been given. In fact, all those immigration offenders who are now here in Singapore, will be wise to promptly surrender themselves to be dealt with according to current laws. Overstayers who choose to stay on illegally must face the new punishment, including caning. Those who enter Singapore illegally, once the new provisions are in place, will be charged under the amended Immigration Act and they will face caning, if convicted. Sir, the question of giving a grace period, hence, is not pertinent in this case because we have so much publicity on the matter already. However, let me assure the Chairman of the GPC for Home Affairs and Law that when charges are contemplated in specific cases, the background will be carefully considered. Each case will be considered on its own merit.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to thank the Members who have spoken up in support of the Bill, despite some of the reservations which they have made. I would like to address these comments and reservations individually. I must particularly thank the Chairman of the GPC for Home Affairs and Law for his Committee's support, despite what he called "an agonizing Bill". Sir, the Chairman for the GPC for Home Affairs and Law, Dr Arthur Beng, suggested that we should consider a two weeks' grace period for those who are already here to surrender to the authorities, so that they will not be caught under the new enhanced penalty. Let me point out that in the first two weeks of this year, 1989, there were no less than six reports in the Straits Times alone on the problem of immigration offenders and illegal workers: 5th January - "Authorities watch 6 pick-up points for illegal foreign workers"; 7th January - "Man jailed 3 years for bringing in illegal workers"; 8th January - "Ministry steps up checks to nab illegal immigrants"; 11th January - "No permits: $40,600 fine for 9 bosses"; 14th January - "Tougher penalties planned to stem tide of illegal workers". Caning was mentioned as a possible deterrent. On the same day, Sir, there was another article suggesting that the Government should make bosses of illegal workers pay heavily for their offences. Newspapers in the other languages also carried reports on this matter. This Bill was introduced for the First Reading on 16th January, and on 17th January amendments to the Immigration Act were reported in the papers, including the new provision for mandatory caning. Sir, these reports are clear warning to immigration offenders and their employers that new and tougher measures are about to be implemented to deal with them.”
“In addition to that, working in our jails they also earn money. What then is the answer? We could find, honestly, no answer or alternative proposal. On the other hand, the picture of organized crime drives a chill down our spines. If they can do this with labour, what about other forms of illegal or organized crime? For example, prostitution, gambling, and maybe even new forms of secret society activities will appear. What effect will this have on the public safety of our nation? It cannot be but a negative effect. Sir, based on these facts - that the problem of illegal immigrants is closely akin or is actually organized crime and is on the increase - we support this Bill.”
“I am sure that we will have no pleasure in caning them. Caning is a severe matter. I understand that it takes about a week for the wound to heal. A doctor has to be on standby when caning is in progress. The fact that this legislation will be effective is shown by the Straits Times report, again of January 25th, of three Thai overstayers who were trying to flee from Singapore. Let their respective foreign missions here be responsible for repatriating them. They can then spread the word back home regarding our new laws. I know that I stand to be accused of being soft-hearted or taking the soft line, or maybe even the populist line, for saying this. But I say this with conviction and on humanitarian grounds because these people are here now, and now we are enacting laws which will affect them. Second, will the Minister consider printing onto work permits, all work permit forms and work permits issued from now on, a cautionary note akin to that of drug offenders, to warn them of the consequences of overstaying? Third, ask our foreign missions in the countries where these people come from to publicize the new law. Fourth, meet the employers and other interest groups to help them and advise them. Let us bear in mind that they may be bona vide employers with genuine problems of getting labourers. Sir, for my GPC this has been an agonizing Bill. And I am sure for the Senior Minister of State himself, it also is one. Our initial reaction was that mandatory caning was too severe a punishment for someone who comes to Singapore to earn a living. We search hard to find an alternative. To increase fines - they have no money to pay; increase jail terms - it has no effect. It is a well-known fact that our jails are much better than theirs.”
“Firstly, there is the illegal overstayer. He comes here on a valid work permit but he overstays. Secondly, there is I believe the illegal overstayer who may be a repeat offender and, thirdly, the illegal immigrant who sneaks into Singapore without any travel documents and then receives maybe forged work permits. The punishment in each case should be commensurate with the crime, ie, the illegal immigrant who came into Singapore without valid travel papers, in my mind, should be treated most severely. The reason is obvious. Because the person who has successfully entered Singapore without any travel papers is part of a syndicate and he may also bring along with him drugs or even firearms and explosives. Sir, I would like to seek clarification from the Senior Minister of State regarding clause (2) of the Bill. Firstly, in a factory scenario, who will be responsible? The departmental head, the personnel manager, the factory manager, or the Chief Executive of the organization? In a construction site scenario, the problem becomes even more complicated with owner, main contractor, sub-contractors, and sub-sub-sub-contractors engaging workers. For example, if the Ministry of Health builds a hospital and an illegal immigrant is found on the site, ultimately who is responsible? Will it be my good friend, the Minister for Health? I raise this not in jest, but in all seriousness because it is a matter of concern to people who are in the construction and the development industry. Sir, the punishments to be meted out will be severe. I would like the Senior Minister of State to consider the following: First, whether he would allow a grace period, for example two weeks, for those illegal immigrants already here to surrender themselves to the authorities.”
“Thirdly, bona fide Singaporean businessmen, who knowingly or unknowingly employ these illegal immigrants, become a party to this crime. Why do I say "unknowingly"? This is because of the problem of forged work permits. Some of these, I understand from the Ministry, are so well done that it would be difficult to differentiate the counterfeit from the real. Fourthly, the punishment to be meted out to the illegal overstayer may be regarded by some as too much, namely, that of mandatory caning. Sir, in my mind, there is no doubt that this is organized crime. The illegal immigrant has to be matched to an employer. He has to be provided with food and shelter during the period he is here. He is even given forged work permits. For the illegal immigrant who enters Singapore illegally, the picture is even more grave. There must be connections with overseas counterparts to supply the labour, to engage them, to transport them to Singapore and match these persons to Singapore employers. It is based on this scenario of an organized crime that we in our GPC support the stern measures to be taken. The Straits Times report of 25th January goes to illustrate this problem. There is the Thai agent. Then there are cars which have been specially modified so that the illegal immigrants can hide inside. All this shows that this is organized crime. In my mind, there is no question to it. But, Sir, who is the greatest villain of this all? My GPC members and others in this House, I am sure, will expand on this. How has the situation reached such alarming proportions? What is, as the Minister correctly mentioned, the root cause? Other members of my GPC will comment on this. Sir, we urge the Ministry of Home Affairs to distinguish between the profiles of the illegal immigrant.”
“The Bill also makes it an offence for the owner, tenant and occupier of any premises to knowingly allow his premises to be used for the employment of immigration offenders. These provisions will prevent the irresponsible and unscrupulous employers from escaping prosecution. The onus will now be on the occupiers and the employers. They have to ensure that only legitimate workers are allowed entry to workplaces under their control. Employers who institute proper measures to check the immigration status of their employees need not fear the changes to the Immigration Act. Those who choose to flout our immigration laws will not get away easily. Finally, Sir, the Bill seeks to introduce mandatory caning of at least three strokes and at least three months' imprisonment for those who overstay 90 days or more or enter Singapore illegally. Our experience has shown that the present jail sentence of at least six months is not a sufficient deterrent. There is also no point in wasting our valuable resources, both financial and manpower, by jailing and feeding immigration offenders for long periods of time. With the introduction of caning, the mandatory imprisonment for these overstayers and illegal immigrants will be reduced to three months and, at the same time, the penalty will become a more effective deterrent. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is obvious that we have a very complex and serious problem on our hands. Why is this so? Firstly, the picture given is that of an organized crime. I will expand on this later. Secondly, we are dealing with foreign nationals. The people who come here and who are the illegal immigrant workers are nationals of other countries, will be subject now to our new law.”
“Though the Immigration Act now provides for mandatory imprisonment of those who employ immigration offenders, the Immigration Department has found it extremely difficult to secure convictions against unscrupulous employers. This is not due to lack of trying on the part of the Immigration Department. These employers avoid formalizing an employer-employee relationship with immigration offenders. They resort to using immigration offenders' services on a short term basis and by not keeping employment records. The multiple sub-contracting system practised by our contractors at many worksites also makes it difficult for Immigration Department to identify the employers who actually hire the illegal workers. In addition, employers, when confronted, often deny knowledge of the immigration status of their workers. They simply claim ignorance of their workers' immigration offence. Currently, this knowledge factor is a vital ingredient that has to be proved by the prosecution. In many instances it is difficult to prove that an employer knowingly employed an overstayer or immigration offender. Other workers who are potential prosecution witnesses will not implicate or testify against the employers as they face the risk of losing their jobs. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is therefore necessary to amend the Immigration Act to strike at the root cause of the problem of overstayers and illegal immigrants. The Bill introduces a presumption clause against the occupier of any premises, other than residential premises, so that where any immigration offender is found at those premises and is in possession of tools or implements or engaged in any activity which would suggest that the immigration offender is working there, the occupier of those premises shall be presumed to have knowingly employed him.”
“These overstayers threaten our law and order and may carry infectious diseases. Left undetected for too long, they may attempt to sink roots here, with even more serious long-term consequences to the society. We cannot afford to take a casual attitude towards this problem. If we do not take effective measures now, others will find it more attractive to enter or to stay illegally to work here or to seek their fortunes here. We are not against people coming to Singapore to work or even to seek their fortunes here. But they must do so lawfully. To keep the problem within check, we are forced to devote vast amounts of resources to track down, prosecute and repatriate overstayers and illegal immi- grants. As at 6th January, 1989, there were 1,014 overstayers and illegal immigrants in our prisons. This constitutes 17% of our total prison population. As a result, scarce funds and manpower resources have to be diverted from the rehabilitation of local prisoners and drug addicts to these foreigners. The problem of overstayers is not entirely caused by foreigners. There are Singaporean employers who contribute to this problem by willingly and knowingly employing immigration offenders. These employers are the root cause of the problem. Without employment, foreigners will not be tempted to overstay or enter illegally. It is the unscrupulous employers who create a demand which attracts the foreigners. As a result of this strong demand, trafficking syndicates have sprung up to supply illegal workers. With good prospects for further economic growth, we can foresee that the demand will not abate on its own accord. If more drastic measures are not taken now, we are going to be swamped by an increasing number of illegal immigrants and overstayers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Immigration Act was last amended in 1984 when this House enhanced the penalties for various offences such as the offences of overstaying, illegal entry and the employing of immigration offenders. The present penalty for overstaying in excess of three months, illegal entry and employing immigration offenders is a mandatory imprisonment term of between six months and two years and a fine of up to $6,000. These stiffer penalties and economic slowdown between 1985 and 1986 have helped to contain the overstayer problem. In 1984, a record high of 5,665 overstayers were arrested. After the 1984 amendment, the number arrested fell to 4,559 in 1985 and 2,916 in 1986. However, with economic recovery, the problem has resurfaced. In 1987, 3,532 overstayers were arrested and in 1988, the number arrested was 4,120, an increase of 16.6%. Besides this sharp increase, a large number of arrested overstayers have been found to have overstayed more than three months. In 1986, 1,318 of the 2,916 overstayers arrested (or 45.2%) were found with passes that had lapsed more than three months. In 1987, 1,840 of the 3,532 arrested overstayers (or 52.1%) belonged to this category. In 1988, 1,850 of those arrested (or 44.9%) were such offenders. In other words, nearly one in two overstayers have overstayed more than three months. Long term overstayers not only blatantly break our immigration and employment laws but they also pose a threat to our society. By circumventing work permit rules to work here illegally, overstayers are not subject to stringent checks carried out by the Work Permit Department to weed out known criminals. They are also not subjected to medical clearance imposed by the Work Permit Department.”
“As I said in my Second Reading speech, even before we acceded to CITES, we have on our own prohibited the trade in rhinoceros horns. The Straits Times reported on the 25th October 1986 that very few Chinese sinsehs are prescribing scrapings of rhinoceros horns to their patients. This has been so since the trade has been prohibited. They have switched to using Siberian antelope horns. This shows that alternatives are readily available for traditional cures. Hence, the Endangered Species Bill will not have an adverse impact on the use of animals and animal products in Chinese cuisine or medicine. Sir, the Member also wanted to know the impact of this Bill on those who are farming crocodiles or those who sell articles made from crocodile skins. In order to allow crocodile farmers to set up their breeding and rearing programme, Singapore has entered reservations on the two most common farm species of crocodiles in Singapore, namely, Crocodilus porosus and Crocodilus novaguinea novaguinea. Crocodile farmers can, therefore, continue to be able to freely obtain stocks of these crocodiles for breeding and rearing and exporting these crocodiles and their skins. In fact, farming of wildlife helps to prevent their extinction. For example, the Singapore Zoological Garden has successfully bred 15 out of 28 endangered species in its collection. For this reason, crocodile farmers should make every effort to establish breeding and rearing farms. Sir, I believe I have covered the points raised by the Member for Chua Chu Kang.”
“There has not been any abuse of the powers of entry, search and arrest without warrant. I think this is a track record which should reassure the Member for Chua Chu Kang. Sir, before the powers can be used by the authorized officer, there must be reason to suspect that an offence is being committed under the Act. These powers cannot be used indiscriminately. Suppose one of the authorized officers turns out to be an errant officer, suppose one of them abuses his powers, let me assure the Member that every case of action under these powers will be reported to the Director of Primary Production Department and to the Ministry. Any errant officer, who misused or abused the power granted to him by the Director of Primary Production, will very soon have his wings clipped and put out of action quickly. Sir, the Member also spoke about the concern of some Singaporeans who have a liking for dining on exotic animals. He also wanted to know what is the impact of this Bill on traditional Chinese cures and medicines. Sir, not all wildlife and animal parts used as Chinese delicacies or for medicinal purposes are endangered species protected by CITES. Certain species of snakes, deer, buffalo and many others are not threatened with extinction and are thus not on CITES' list. Even for species protected by CITES, there are variations in the degree of control. Some species are less threatened and can still be traded, provided they are accompanied by CITES documentations. Hence, the custom of eating certain types of exotic animals is not likely to become an endangered custom, provided these animals are not highly protected. Sir, in the case of traditional medicine, there has been a steady move towards using alternative or substitutes in Chinese medicines.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I must thank the Member for Chua Chu Kang, Dr Low Seow Chay, for his support of this Bill. Sir, the power to enter, search and arrest without warrant is not unique to the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Bill. Such powers can be found in a variety of other legislations. These include the Animals and Birds Act, Fisheries Act, Environmental (Public Health) Act, Control of Import and Export Act. May I draw Members' attention to yesterday's Straits Times report, on the front page, of the discovery of an illegal food factory. Sir, I understand that the Environment Ministry officials in this particular case invoked Section 4 of the Sale of Food Act which provides for the power to enter and inspect premises without warrant. I believe timely action is necessary in this case. Such timely actions may well have saved thousands of Singaporeans from serious food poisoning. Therefore, the power of entry, search and even arrest is necessary in such situations. Why is it then necessary to have it in the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Bill? The reason is that the trade in endangered species is very lucrative. It is well organized and it is carried out surreptitiously. Enforcement authorities must be able to act quickly in order to secure evidence. Any delay in obtaining warrant of arrest may allow the traders to escape prosecution by removing the controlled animals or animal parts. The Member asked whether such powers will be abused by a junior officer who is authorized under the Bill. Sir, let me give the Member an example. The Animals and Birds Act has been in force for 23 years. It has the same power of entry and search without warrant. The Fisheries Act has been around for 19 years. Similar powers are also provided for.”
“That may be so, Mr Speaker, Sir. Every time somebody rejects a flat, he remains in the queue. Subsequently, if there are more flats available they have to be offered to these people first before they can be offered to others on the waiting list. In other words, they will continue to enjoy the opportunity of having the pick of the crop and retaining their position high up in the queue; and that is not being fair to those people who are lower down in the queue. The following Question stood in the name of Dr Aline K. Wong --- DUMPING OF TOXIC WASTE IN BANGKOK 5. To ask the Minister for the Environment what is the outcome of his Ministry's investigation into allegations that toxic waste had been shipped from Singapore and dumped at Bangkok's Klong Toey port.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, leave it to the applicant to decide how long he wants his application to remain dormant? That means, he goes back, he considers it and then he re-applies when he wants to activate his application again.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, how does HDB place such applicants as 'dormant' applicants and yet at the time when they want to have a flat provide the flats immediately to them? Would that be fair to all the other applicants who have been patiently waiting and are on the list and they have gone and made their selection? Maj Fong Sip Chee: I think the Minister misunderstands me. Perhaps I was not clear. I am sorry for that. What I mean is that a person has got to inform the HDB subsequently that he wants his application to be considered now, or rather, to take it from the dormant pool. Then his priority will start on that day. It does not go back to his old priority. It is on that day.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member says reassign them a different priority - where? Somewhere in between, ie the beginning of the queue and where they were before. If you take that approach, then you are still inconveniencing and delaying other people lower down the queue. So at what point do you reallocate his position in the queue? I think HDB has to take the approach that there are 61,000 applicants on the queue and there is a need to enable each of them to make a selection as soon as possible. For those who have been given ample opportunities to select but refuse to take up the flats, then this must indicate to HDB that they are not in urgent need of housing and that they can afford to wait a little bit longer. If that is the case, perhaps they can start again at the bottom of the queue. Then again, they may want to change their choice of location. They may want to apply for flats in another zone. It is entirely up to them. Maj Fong Sip Chee: Would not the Minister place that application as 'dormant' application and allow the applicant to inform the HDB that he wants his application to be considered now? This will not deprive the others.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when people apply for flats they indicate the zone of preference and offers to them are made on that basis. But HDB will never undertake and it is impossible for HDB to provide every applicant on the waiting list with an ideal flat suited to every requirement of the applicant. Therefore, we need to have a scheme whereby people are encouraged to make their selection of flats as soon as possible in order to keep the queue moving. Maj Fong Sip Chee: Would the Minister not consider it fairer that those who reject the third offer would have their priority relegated to lower priority, rather than to cancel their applications which entail a re-application and the confiscation of the deposit? Would the Minister not consider it fairer to these people?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, offers to applicants on the waiting list are made according to the queue number. When the queue number is due, an offer is made. To allow an applicant to write in to say, "I would like to defer this selection exercise and I would like to opt out of it" would mean that it would nullify the whole objective of this scheme.”
“As I have explained, Mr Speaker, Sir, the scheme is to encourage people to select flats made available to them as soon as possible. Otherwise those people who are lower down on the waiting list will lose even more interest because they have paid their deposit and if the applicant higher up on the queue does not take up the flat, they will have to wait a long time - years. And who is going to bear those interest charges in their case then?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when the third offer has been rejected, the applicant is no longer on the queue. He is put back to the end and has to start again, and he will lose his deposit. In the case of those who are applying for the first time, they will lose a $200 administrative fee. For those who have applied as a means of upgrading, in other words, they are already living in an HDB flat and have applied to purchase a larger flat, they lose a higher administrative fee of $600. These charges are necessary to discourage frivolous applications.”
“The rule was announced in February 1986 and only those people who reject the offer under the scheme as of February 1986 would be considered under the scheme.”
“The Member must understand that each time somebody rejects an offer, somebody else further down the waiting list will have his chance to select a flat delayed and if people higher up on the waiting list continually reject the flats that are offered to them, those people who are lower on the waiting list will never get a chance to select their flat. Hence HDB has to adopt this 3-offer selection system. Maj Fong Sip Chee (Kampong Chai Chee): Sir, would the Minister consider that the measure just taken is retroactive and punitive? Would not the Minister agree that the rule, as he said, came into operation in February 1986, retroactive and punitive? In other words, the Minister has announced that if an applicant was found to have rejected a third offer, his application would be cancelled. Would the Minister agree therefore that this rule would apply to those people who have rejected two offers before? In other words, this rule is retroactive and punitive?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me explain how this 3-offer system of selection of flats is implemented. HDB does not consider every invitation to an applicant to select flat as an offer under the scheme. An invitation to select a flat becomes an offer only when the applicant's queue number is within the top 50% of the number of flats available for selection in the exercise. Let me give him an example. If there are 100 flats available for selection, HDB will call at least 100 applicants to select flats. Only the first 50 applicants in this case will have their offers constituted as one of the offers under the "three opportunities to select scheme"; the rest will not be constituted as an offer. The letter to the first 50 applicants will state clearly that this is an offer for him to select. And if they had rejected a similar offer previously, then the letter will state, "This is your second offer". So they know very clearly that they had already rejected one offer under the scheme and that they now have a chance to make second selection. And if they reject it, then there will be a third offer. To make sure that nobody misunderstands or that there is miscommunication, when HDB sends out the third offer to the applicant, it is sent by registered mail and it is clearly stated that "this is your third and final offer". Therefore, all applicants on the waiting list for HDB flats are kept very well informed of their position on the waiting list. To consider an extension of the scheme to a fourth offer would really impose a burden on the rest of the people who are on the waiting list.”