Wong Kan Seng
Singapore
“We all want a better future for our children and the future generations. Amid the debates, let us not lose sight of what we are working for – we are working for the benefit and future of Singaporeans. Not for growth targets, not for foreigners, but for Singaporeans.”
“Mrs Mildred Tan also suggested doing a longitudinal study on the impact of new citizens on Singapore. I am told that there is a periodic study on the perception of integration and rootedness of Singaporeans and PRs. A study is now ongoing too.”
“All they need to do is simply declare that they meet the residential criteria. EASING IN US ECONOMY (Impact on Singapore) 9. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Senior Minister what will be the expected impact on the Singapore economy arising from the US Federal Reserve's announcement on 3rd November 2010 of a "quantitative easing" of the US economy…”
“Well, from the data I have here, 553 registered to vote before the 2006 GE and this is the data I have but Ms Lim may be right. There may be 1,000-odd that Ms Lim had mentioned. From what I am told now, we have 1,325 Singaporean overseas who are eligible to register to vote have registered.”
“But, as I said, there are so many other possibilities that they could come in and there could also be many possibilities that we could have missed and they have entered or left Singapore. LAND SWAP AGREEMENT FOR KTM STATION AND RAILWAY LANDS 2.”
“They are also recruiting people by offering them scholarships. So, we hope more of our companies can do that. Hopefully they come here to work for a while and, if they like our place, they may want to settle down. This is a place which they can think about. POPULATION AND TALENT DIVISION 5. Assoc. Prof.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,192 lines we hold for Wong Kan Seng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 31 of 64.
“But now with stricter enforcement by the Police and SIR, we see a larger number of harbourers and employers being arrested in the last three years. This is because we found the situation untenable. With so many of them coming into Singapore illegally and if our landlords and employers continue to harbour and employ them, then we must take tough action.”
“Sir, I cannot answer Mr Low's first question directly whether or not the landlord will be liable when the tenant brings in an illegal immigrant and lets a room out to him. Much turns on the facts whether the landlord is aware of this taking place and turning a blind eye to it. Because if the landlord turns up and collects rent, and he rents it out to two persons and regularly he sees many other people living there, then he has reasons to suspect. In fact, he should question his tenant who are these people, how long they have been there, etc. Much depends on the evidence available. Mr Low said that the law is not effective even with mandatory sentence. I do not agree with that. Does he mean to say that the law is not deterrent enough and the six months' jail is not enough? Is he suggesting that? Already with the minimum six months' jail, everyone is talking about this being too harsh. Supposing we raise it higher, people will feel great pain. I do not think that is the problem. The point is that for the illegal immigrants, Singapore is such an attractive place. We have economic growth whereas many countries where they come from do not have employment, or maybe if they have, the pay is not as good as Singapore's. And they find it attractive to come here, even to the extent of borrowing money, thousands of dollars, pawning their jewellery or whatever, and selling their homes and so on, to come here because they think they can make a better living here, earn, save and bring home the money. It is a great attraction to come and work in Singapore. For the landlords and the harbourers, as I have said, the due diligence requirements were not as clearly spelt out as in 1998. So despite prosecution efforts, many of the harbourers and employers managed to get off.”
“Sir, the Minister for Manpower has just told me that it is not a fair statement to make because he himself called his own office, MOM's Work Permit Office, and he could get through and he found the girl very polite and very helpful. Of course, we must bear in mind that people do not just call SIR to check on the particulars of a foreigner. People call SIR for all kinds of enquiries, whether it is about passport, immigration pass, permanent residence status, social visit status, visas and so on. Although there are many phone lines, during the peak periods, they can be all occupied. If they cannot get through, try again. And if they still cannot get through, it is not a difficult thing to go to SIR. SIR has such a nice office environment, very friendly and all the signposts are very clear on how to get to a particular place, and it is right next to an MRT station. If Dr Vasoo says that these places are not accessible, I would not accept that, because Singapore is a very small place.”
“Sir, the thrust of Dr Vasoo's question is: let us pass the responsibility of all these checks to somebody else and get the HDB or whoever to levy a fee. They cannot pay the $2 DBS charge. I think if agencies levy a fee, we are going to have a lot of trouble with these people. But as I have said, this is a serious point. No landlord can disclaim responsibility. The law is very clear, regardless of whether he may be less educated, poor or needy. Being poor does not mean that he can be exempted from the law. Our laws must be applied to everyone. I gave a long answer just now as to why there is no such thing as an unwitting offender. The Member said the procedure is cumbersome and, therefore, the landlord did not want to check. Then he is not unwitting. He is a party to it to allow this to happen. On the system to verify, I think the easiest thing is to look at the documents himself. If he does not know how to check, ask his neighbour. That is the simplest thing to do. Or he can make a phone call to SIR or MOM. He can still call and verify. But at the same time, he must ask for the piece of paper that supports this verification from SIR or MOM. Do not just depend on the phone call and later on say that he did call and there was no evidence of that. Primarily, the landlord is responsible regardless of his social status.”
“It will be in the interest of the landlord to see the documents himself. For the agent, right now, there is no law that makes the agent liable. The law requires the landlord to perform those due diligence requirements. Supposing the landlord gets the agent to check it for him, and in a number of such instances that I read, the agent then disappeared and the landlord could not produce him, then there would be difficulties in assessing the evidence. As to whether eventually when we amend the law, and hold both parties liable or not, I have just said that this does not absolve the landlord from his liabilities. But in the end, the Court will have to decide based on the evidence.”
“Yes, in fact, the Minister for Manpower said earlier on that this will be made available within the next three months and SIR is also doing the same thing in collaboration with the Work Permit Department. In the first phase, they will put the names and the Foreign Identification Number (FIN) and other details on the Internet, and subsequently, they will put in the photographs as well because it requires some time to prepare this process. Assoc. Prof Chin Tet Yung: Sir, I would like to come back to the point about responsibility of agents and landlords. If a landlord who is not well-educated decides to trust an agent and employs an agent specifically for the purpose of checking the documentation and so on, would this not be sufficient as far as the landlord is concerned? Because he or she may not be very familiar with immigration documents but the housing agent professes to know a lot about that and is familiar with the checking processes and so on. Surely, it would not be right, at the same time, to require the landlord to go through the procedure once more because after all, he or she is much less well-informed as the housing agent and if the housing agent, who is professionally employed for the purpose, says that it is valid and everything has been done and he can be assured that the labourer is a legitimate immigrant to Singapore, why should the landlord be held accountable?”
“The landlord should really check the work permit or the work pass to make sure that the period of tenancy covers the period that he has a valid work pass. If he does not have that, then of course, the landlord has got to be very careful. But once he has performed the check and later on if the tenant becomes illegal, for instance, because his employer has cancelled his work pass, then that will be a factor that the prosecution will consider in not charging him.”
“Sir, we are looking at other amendments to the Immigration Act and once we are ready, we will present a Bill to the House for approval. Yes, there are internal guidelines. They are not meant to be public because if they know what these guidelines are, then it is easy for them to find the reasons why they should not be prosecuted, and we cannot allow that to be abused. Neither can we allow the guidelines to be undermined.”
“Sir, the work permit that we are issuing now is almost like our NRIC. It has a thumbprint, a photograph, the name of the person, the name of the employer, and so on. So all the particulars are there. Check that. If he happens to be someone who has been here for a while and before he updates to a new pass, then do the logical step, that is, check with SIR or with MOM because we have only started late last year to issue NRIC-type of work permits to foreign workers.”
“I do not think this law will deter landlords who want to rent their properties to legal immigrants because it is quite easy to determine a legal immigrant from an illegal immigrant. And if the person has checked with SIR, SIR would give him the confirmation, provided they produce the original copies and not the photocopies. Earlier when Mr Inderjit Singh asked the Minister for Manpower whether they could check with MOM if they produce a photocopy, the Minister had said they cannot. They must check the original copies. From the original, SIR can determine whether that is an original pass from the record that is available with SIR.”
“Sir, we have to treat both the employers and the landlords in the same category because both facilitate the stay of the legal immigrants in Singapore, one provides them with job, the other provides them with accommodation. No doubt, there are people with different abilities, education background, etc, but it is their duty to go and get someone to help them to check these documents if they themselves do not know. Not knowing and not being able to read is not a defence in this law. If the landlord has checked the document that is supposed to be original but, in fact, it is a fake, then it would be a good defence for him, if he can argue that in court, and much depends on the facts of the case, rather than for me to go and speculate what would happen if that happens, and so on. I cannot answer all these hypotheses. Only the court can decide based on available evidence. On the procedure to get the landlords and the tenants to go to the NPP, I do not think it is necessary. All they need to do is to look at the documents, check the original passport and, if necessary, they can call up SIR, or MOM, rather than to create another layer in another place to do such a check.”
“Sir, I have explained, at great length, why the landlords are not unjustly punished if they did not perform the due diligence requirements. The law is very clear that they are required to take the three steps to check the passports, the work passes and travel documents, and if necessary, check with the employers of those who are working here. So they ought to know because of the publicity that we have made over the years. To allow landlords to make a defence to say somebody else has done the job for them is not enough because they just cannot pass the responsibility of renting a home to somebody else. That is their home, they have primary responsibility. But I take the point that there could be others who assist the landlord in renting out the property. I have just said that we will amend the law to also make those who facilitate such renting of premises liable, if it can be proven. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the items of business under discussion and the remaining items on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. HARBOURING OF IMMIGRATION OFFENDERS (Statement by the Minister for Home Affairs) Debate resumed.”
“By taking an active interest, they would help to make Singapore a safer and more secure place. And this would also be in their own interest. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Sir, I agree with the tough policy on illegal immigrants and harbourers. But deterrence is effective only if the right people are punished. I refer to the Minister's final point concerning landlords and agents. Sir, when a landlord relies on an agent to perform the due diligence test and the agent fails to exercise due diligence, the landlord is punished instead. That seems to many people to be wrong. I would like to ask the Minister whether his Ministry would consider introducing a defence that would permit a landlord to show that another party is responsible and that if he shows this to the satisfaction of the court, he, the landlord, should be exonerated and the agent punished. In this way, criminal responsibility is correctly placed. This type of defence is not new. It can be found, for example, in section 93 of the Factories Act. I should like to ask the Minister to consider such a defence in this particular type of case because much of the public annoyance seems to have come from the fact that they thought that the landlords were unjustly punished.”
“We would then have an even more serious immigration offender problem on our hands. Sir, I am not the first Minister for Home Affairs to deal with this problem. Mr Chua Sian Chin dealt with it in 1984, Prof. Jayakumar dealt with it in 1989 and amended the law in 1993 to make it clear as to what landlords needed to check. Still that was not enough, and hence, I amended the law again in 1998 to state the three checks that the landlords are required to make. Amendments to the Immigration Act Finally, Sir, Mr Goh Choon Kang asked if the Ministry will consider requiring housing agents to ensure that the tenants they introduce to landlords are not immigration offenders. The answer is yes. Amongst others, we will consider extending the due diligence requirements by landlords to those who act as facilitators or middlemen, such as housing agents, in the renting of premises to immigration offenders. But this should not be construed as a move to absolve the landlords of their responsibilities. All landlords should still personally check the documents of their prospective tenants. Conclusion We welcome bona fide tourists to visit Singapore. We welcome foreigners to work here. But we cannot allow foreigners to enter or stay here illegally. No country allows that. Neither can we adopt a casual attitude towards those who employ or harbour immigration offenders. We need to be clear and consistent in our message and action that we are serious about tackling the immigration offender problem comprehensively. Landlords must play their part by diligently ensuring that they do not give shelter to the immigration offenders. It is not too late to start checking the immigration status of their tenants.”
“I have set out the background to the various amendments to the Immigration Act to show that the law cannot just target the knowing or the intentional offender. As it is difficult to prove knowledge or intention, many landlords will be punished with less strict penalties, such as fines. If we were to do that, then the problem of immigration offenders will not be minimised as there would always be any number of "first-time" offenders. This will embolden landlords to take risks, thus undermining our comprehensive approach to tackling the problem. The nature and magnitude of our illegal offenders' problem justifies a tough approach. As the law has been widely publicised over the years, landlords should not be claiming ignorance as an excuse, and say that they have breached the law unwittingly. For landlords who know that harbouring of immigration offenders is an offence, their act in breaking the law cannot be innocuous, because grave social harm can be caused by their action. Singaporeans' safety will be jeopardized. If a landlord knows the checks he is supposed to conduct, but only does some cursory check, it is then not a question of negligence. Rather, he took the risk of not conducting all the required checks. The law is very clear - a landlord is supposed to conduct the requisite checks spelt out in the law. For good reasons, the law does not require him to have wilfully failed to conduct these checks. Also, with more than adequate publicity over the years, there is no reason to make an exception for any particular group, whether they be first-timers, retirees and so on. If we let first-timers off, the law would lose its deterrence and effectiveness, as the vast majority of the harbourers are first-timers.”
“This shows that homeowners would not care unless the matter affects them personally. Against this consistent publicity backdrop, surely it is reasonable to expect landlords to be extra careful when they let out their premises to foreigners. For landlords who have been prosecuted, even if they did not fully comply with the due diligence requirements of the three checks, they had fallen short. They may look like decent people, like you and me. But they were not "innocent", "innocuous" or "unwitting" landlords as some people said. Landlords know that they are dealing with foreign tenants. Yet, many do not even bother to check their tenants' passports despite the widespread and regular publicity over the years about the immigration offenders problem. Some merely look at photocopies of their tenants' work permits. Others just leave the checking to their housing agents. This is not good enough. Are There Discretion and Guidelines Supplied by the Prosecution? Sir, the authorities have been meticulous in examining the circumstances and facts of every case, before a decision is taken as to whether to charge a landlord in court. Internal guidelines to determine whether an offender should be charged in court have been in place all the while. Over the years, the guidelines have been fine-tuned to ensure their relevance and effectiveness. In the last two years, about half of those arrested were not charged in court. Dr Vasoo and Mr Noris Ong asked that we should have flexibility and a different set of punishment for offenders who have broken the law unwittingly or due to negligence, such as fines, that they should not be imprisoned.”
“In July 1998, HDB issued notices to all flat owners and tenants who were eligible to sublet their rooms to warn them against letting out accommodation to immigration offenders. The notice spelt out clearly the checks that are required of the owners to conduct to avoid harbouring immigration offenders. These notices would have reached more than 80% of all home owners in Singapore. I have also personally, in Parliament and on other occasions, publicly stressed the seriousness of the immigration offender problem, and how landlords can play an important part by denying them a place to stay. The media has carried my comments. In short, there has been a lot of publicity on the seriousness of the immigration offender situation, especially on our enforcement efforts and severe penalties. I am told that in the last few years, there was on average, at least one report relating to immigration offenders every month. Some of these reports in particular reminded the public to be careful when employing or renting out their premises to them. The Government cannot ensure that every landlord knows the due diligence requirements. But it has done enough to publicise them. The problem really is that people who read the publicity or who have received the HDB notices in 1998 did not care enough to take note, as, at that time, many felt the matter did not concern them, since they were not planning to rent out their flats or rooms. In fact, when SIR sent out pamphlets recently to remind all households late last month - I think they sent to hundreds of thousands of households - some homeowners actually rang up SIR to complain that the pamphlet is unnecessary and a waste of public money! Some even questioned whether SIR is suspecting them of harbouring immigration offenders.”
“The Immigration Act was further amended in 1998 to update and state clearly what the requirements are, namely, the landlords are required to check the original immigration or work passes, check that the particulars on these passes correspond with the particulars in the passports, and if the employers are named, check with the employer to verify that his prospective tenants are indeed employed by them. These checks help to ensure that the foreign tenant is legally in Singapore, either on a valid work permit, or a valid immigration pass. Landlords are required to check the original passes because it is easy to fake photocopies. The checks against the passport and with the employer are meant to reduce the likelihood that the work permit or immigration pass is a fake. These checks are straightforward. The setting out of these due diligence requirements in fact helps homeowners. They are informed exactly what they have to do to rebut the presumption that they knew the illegal immigration status of their tenants. It is also in the interest of homeowners to conduct the checks. It concerns not only the safety and security of the community, but also their own personal safety. In the 1998 case that I mentioned earlier, the elderly couple were murdered because they rented out a room to suspected illegal immigrants. This would not have happened if the couple had not taken them in. Has There Been Adequate Publicity? The next question I want to address is: has there been adequate publicity? There has. The due diligence requirements are stated clearly in the Immigration Act. They have been well publicised over the years - in the newspapers, over the radio and television, through Crime Watch, and through SIR pamphlets.”
“Chua, in relation to a harbouring appeal case, said that the social policy of the Immigration Act "would not be achieved if mere negligence and recklessness on the part of the accused to enquire about the status of the illegal immigrant or overstayer, if he knows or has reason to believe that the person is a foreigner, would be sufficient to rebut the presumption of knowledge." Later, in another appeal case in 1993, the Chief Justice said clearly in his judgement that "to allow an employer to evade the section by shutting his eyes to the immigration or employment status of his foreign employee, would make proper control and enforcement impossible. It cannot be placing too onerous a duty upon employers in Singapore to require them to screen their foreign workers before employing them to ensure compliance with immigration policy and the law." Therefore, from the outset, both the Courts and the Government were in agreement that our immigration laws must not be defeated by a harbourer or employer simply making a claim that he did not know that the tenant or worker was an illegal. The judges agreed that our immigration laws should be interpreted strictly and that it was reasonable to impose some form of screening on landlords and employers. That was why the Immigration Act was amended in 1993 to expressly require landlords to check the passport or travel document of the foreigner he intends to employ or let out his premises to.”
“The Ministry of Home Affairs and the then Ministry of Labour had issued a joint press statement to warn against harbouring or employing immigration offenders. The statement highlighted that any person who harbours or employs an immigration offender would face the same penalty, which includes a mandatory minimum of 6 months' jail. So that mandatory 6 months' jail was enacted then. Employers and harbourers therefore must be treated in the same way for either employing or giving shelter to immigration offenders. Why Need Presumption Clause and Due Diligence Requirements? The next question is why we need the presumption clause and the due diligence requirement. The presumption clause against landlords is also not new. It has been in place since 1984. Under the clause, a person who gives shelter to an immigration offender is presumed to know the immigration status of the person he has given shelter to. Why is it necessary to have the presumption clause? Because it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the prosecution to prove that the landlord knows that his tenant is an immigration offender, (unless, of course, he had told someone else who is prepared to testify in Court, or unless he had written it down somewhere). Hence, this approach is based on common sense, since the landlord is in the best position to explain to the Court why, even though his tenant is an immigration offender, he nevertheless does not know of his illegal status. However, despite the earlier presumption clause provided for in 1984, the prosecution still faced difficulties in getting errant landlords convicted. These landlords were able to secure acquittals by arguing that they had checked a photocopy of the work permit. In 1991, Justice F.A.”
“The Government eventually took a more targeted approach, and introduced mandatory caning for only the "hardcore" employers who employ more than 5 immigration offenders. Again, Sir, the Sunday Times in another editorial on 29th October 1995 headlined, "No jobs here for illegals", supported tough deterrent sentences against errant employers. The editorial said, and I quote: "The assurance that the Police will crack down hard on those who employ illegal immigrants will be received with widespread relief. In the longer term, tough deterrent measures will also help to protect foreign workers from exploitation, both by racketeers and unscrupulous employers." Here, they are talking about the requirements for the main contractors to comply with due diligence requirements by boarding up the worksites. That was the amendment that I moved in 1995. Indeed, the Government will continue to come down hard on those who employ or provide shelter to immigration offenders. Why Treat Employers and Harbourers the Same? The next issue, Sir, is why do we treat the employers and the harbourers the same? Should employers and harbourers be treated differently? The answer should clearly be "no", because both employers and harbourers cause the same damage to the State. Both profit from activities that contribute to the immigration offender problem. Without work and a place to stay, immigration offenders will not find it worthwhile, indeed extremely difficult to stay in Singapore. That is why both the Ministry of Home Affairs and the then Ministry of Labour had from day one in 1984 decided to treat both employers and harbourers in the same way.”
“Parliament passed the amendment and imposed a mandatory minimum jail term of 6 months for employers and harbourers of immigration offenders. It was meant to ensure that the penalty is sufficiently deterrent so that it would not be worthwhile for anyone to employ or harbour immigration offenders. Singapore is not the only country to use mandatory sentences as a deterrent. Other countries, such as the UK and US, also have them for offences they deem severe enough. In fact, some Singaporeans felt that the mandatory jail penalty was not enough. After the Government introduced mandatory caning for immigration offenders and a presumption clause against employers in January 1989, the Straits Times editorial on 4th August 1989, titled "Cane the Bosses Too", made the case that strong action against employers of immigration offenders should have been taken earlier. I quote from the editorial: "... It (namely, the January 1989 amendments) introduced a presumption clause to make it easier to bring such employers to book. But it left the penalty for the offence itself unchanged. Of course, there are those who might argue that a minimum jail term of 6 months plus a fine is stiff enough. But is it? In case readers have forgotten, that was the old penalty for immigration offenders which was not sufficiently effective deterrent. Surely what is sauce for the goose should be the sauce for the gander." [It meant that we should also cane the employers.] This Straits Times editorial in August 1989 felt that it was unfortunate that the Government in January 1989 did not "take the next logical step - that is, make the penalty for hiring immigration offenders so painful that few employers would dare break the law".”
“In 1998, four unidentified Indian nationals, believed to be illegal immigrants, robbed and killed an elderly couple who rented out the master bedroom in their HDB flat to them. Only about two weeks ago, two PRC illegal immigrants were sentenced to life imprisonment for kidnapping a 14 year-old female student last year. There are other examples. To tackle the problem effectively, it is necessary to come down hard on all the parties who contribute to this problem, namely, the traffickers who smuggle in the illegal immigrants - the profits are very good, I think each of them is paid about 80 to 100 ringgit for each illegal immigrant they smuggle in - the illegal immigrants or the overstayers themselves, the person who employs them, and the person who gives them shelter. Apart from rigorous enforcement against immigration offenders and traffickers, we must make it difficult for the immigration offenders to find work or a place to stay in Singapore. It has to be clear to all that the employment or harbouring of immigration offenders are serious offences, and those who flout the law would be severely dealt with. Why Need Mandatory Penalty? Sir, why do we need a mandatory penalty? It is to serve as a deterrent. The mandatory jail penalty for employers and harbourers is not a new provision. It was introduced way back in 1984 when Mr Chua Sian Chin was the Home Affairs Minister. In moving the amendment to the Immigration Act, he stressed to the House the seriousness of the offence. He said that by offering the illegal immigrants and the overstayers shelter, the landlords were in fact encouraging more foreigners to remain in Singapore illegally. Mr Chua pointed out that employers and harbourers were the main source of the problem.”
“199 - 200) showing the arrest figures for the various groups Table - Number of Arrests from 1992 to 1999 (Cols. 199 - 200) contributing to the immigration offender problem from 1992 to 1999. [Copies of document distributed to hon. Members.] Members can see for themselves the seriousness of the problem. The immigration offenders' problem has almost tripled in 1992 from 6,000 to about 17,000 last year. The number of illegal immigrants has actually gone up almost 30 times, from just 382 in 1992 to 11,500 in 1999. Although the number of overstayers arrested remains at about 5,000-6,000, on average, some years are a bit higher, but that is because of the visa requirement imposed on a number of nationalities who want to come to Singapore. Despite that, we have many who came here on social visit pass and overstayed in Singapore. That is because many of them who come from China and the Indian Continent can easily blend with our environment, live in our flats together with Singaporeans and therefore it is difficult to detect them unless enforcement actions are stepped up. Sir, these immigration offenders pose a serious threat to Singapore's safety and security. Indeed, Singaporeans are concerned about crimes committed by immigration offenders. They are not like the law-abiding foreign workers who come here through legal channels to work or stay in Singapore, few of whom commit crimes. In fact, in 1999, only about 11 out of every 10,000 foreign workers commit crimes compared to 91 Singaporeans out of every 10,000. Immigration offenders would not hesitate to break our laws, having already risked the penalties of mandatory caning and jail. If they cannot find a job in Singapore, they are likely to resort to crime. Police's experience has shown this to be so.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, at the last Parliament sitting, we did not have enough time to debate the immigration offender problem. Members did not have the opportunity to seek clarification. Today, we will have more time for this. Let me try to summarise the main issues concerning the harbouring of immigration offenders. They are: (a) why do we need to adopt a tough stance against harbouring; (b) why is there a need for the mandatory jail penalty; (c) why do we treat employers and harbourers in the same way; (d) why do we need the presumption clause and the due diligence requirements; (e) has there been adequate publicity on the due diligence requirements; and (f) do the authorities exercise discretion when evaluating each individual case. Why adopt a tough stance against harbouring? This is because the immigration offender problem remains a serious one, and those who provide shelter to the immigration offenders contribute to it. Despite flushing out more than 12,000 immigration offenders in 1989 when amnesties were granted, after the Act was amended to provide for their caning, the number of immigration offenders has remained unacceptably high. The number of immigration offenders arrested has increased steadily over the years. In 1992, the number of immigration offenders arrested was about 6,000, but this number peaked to about 23,000 in 1998. Despite rigorous enforcement, the number of immigration offenders arrested last year was still high, at about 17,000. The number of employers and harbourers arrested has also been increasing over the years, reaching a high of 388 for employers and 306 for harbourers in 1999. I have asked the Clerk of Parliament to circulate to you the Table (Cols.”
“Sir, a lot of things have been said against the Government - some very pungent, some very strong and some in very hatred languages - and nobody has been investigated because they have said such things of the Government. But if a person says something that is against the law, ie, if he says something that has slandered or intimidated people, then of course there must be an investigation to determine what he has said is indeed against the law. FOREIGN DOMESTIC MAIDS (Wrong pregnancy test results) 23. Mr Goh Choon Kang asked the Minister for Health how many doctors have been taken to task for providing to employers wrong pregnancy test results for foreign domestic maids from 1996 to date.”
“Sir, the Member did not hear my answer carefully. The last time when we sat and I answered this question, I said we need to register the speeches because only Singapore citizens are allowed to speak. Unless he registers, produces his IC, how do we know that that person who is speaking is a Singapore citizen? Secondly, we need to keep a register because of the reasons I have just stated, ie, for investigation purposes, in case there is a complaint subsequently that the person should not be there. How long will these records be kept? Like all one-off registration, or application for licensing type of record, these records would be kept for five years. As to why we want to make the speakers' list public, what is there to be afraid of if a person is speaking? Everybody ought to know who is speaking. Otherwise, supposing so and so is an interesting speaker and the members of the public may want to find out who the person is and take a look at the list. There is no secrecy about this.”
“The process of registration to speak at the Speakers' Corner is transparent. A speaker is required to give his name and NRIC number when he registers to speak. The names of all the speakers who register to speak will be posted and updated every two hours on a notice board outside the Kreta Ayer Neighbourhood Police Post for the public to see. The public will then know who is speaking at the Corner. The records of the speakers cannot be destroyed at the end of each day because the Police may receive complaints subsequently that someone spoke without registering. The records will then be needed to show whether the person did in fact register with the NPP. Should it be necessary to proceed against a recalcitrant subject who persistently refuses to register, thus breaching the conditions, it will be necessary for the register to be examined by the investigator, and even produced in Court as evidence.”
“Where a foreigner has no work pass records, landlords must check the foreigner's passport or travel document to make sure that the latter has legal stay in Singapore and is not an illegal immigrant.”
“In addition, the Department is also able to verify the identity of a work permit holder if the foreigner is personally present for a finger-print check. We can match his finger-print with records captured when the work permit was issued. In the case of employment pass holders, the Employment Pass Department will verify the authenticity of the pass when requested. For those who do not wish to come personally to the Work Permit Department or the Employment Pass Department, they can also verify the information given on a work pass by calling the Ministry's One-Call Centre. The one-call centre has been receiving as many as 100 calls a day for this purpose. We also provide an interactive voice response system where anyone can dial in to verify the information given on a work pass. An advisory on how to use the interactive voice response system has been freely distributed at the Work Permit Department's service counters since March this year. The Work Permit Department and the Singapore Immigration and Registration are also currently working towards allowing members of the public to verify the work permit status of foreign workers or the long term visit passes of foreigners through the Internet. This facility will be available within 3 to 6 months. While members of the public can make use of the various facilities provided by my Ministry to verify the work permit status of foreign workers, I must stress that landlords should also check both the work pass and passport or travel document to ascertain that the particulars on both documents correspond materially. Where the employer is named, the landlord should also check with the employer to verify that the prospective tenants are in fact employed as stated.”
“Sir, I will also be making a Ministerial Statement afterwards on the subject of illegal immigrants and harbouring of illegal immigrants. So I would ask the three MPs who asked Question Nos. 13, 14 and 15 to also wait patiently for me to make a statement, after which they can ask questions. MINISTRY OF MANPOWER (Screening agency for genuine work permits or passes) 16. Mr Inderjit Singh asked the Minister for Manpower whether he will consider setting up a screening agency within his Ministry to determine whether foreign workers are indeed holding genuine work permits or passes and to serve as a one-stop agency, where landlords and house owners intending to rent out their residential premises to foreign workers, can check whether these workers have such permits and passes. The Minister for Manpower (Dr Lee Boon Yang): Mr Speaker, I do not have a Ministerial Statement. Sir, since mid-1998, my Ministry has been helping people who need to check the status of a foreign worker. We provide a variety of checks for members of the public. The Work Permit Department has a one-stop checking facility for members of the public who wish to verify the authenticity of a work permit card. Anyone can submit an original work permit for checking at the Work Permit Department. The Department receives about 50-60 such requests for authentication every week. An acknowledgement letter will be issued to the member of the public who presents a work permit card for checking. Members of the public can also verify the authenticity of a work permit card by using one of the self-service information kiosks at the Department. Currently, the information kiosk is not equipped to provide a written confirmation. We are in the process of improving the service to provide a hard copy confirmation.”
“Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister would be making a Ministerial Statement afterwards. Among other things, he will also talk about the POSB and DBS issue. So I would suggest Members who asked Question Nos. 1 to 12 to await the DPM's statement, after which they can ask him questions. HARBOURING OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS 13. Dr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there will be some flexibility in dealing with cases related to people who had unwittingly overlooked the bona fides of tenants who were later identified by Immigration authorities to be illegal workers or overstayers. 14. Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether his Ministry plans to review the Immigration Act that deals with the crime of harbouring and employing illegal immigrants, with the view of distinguishing the punishment to be meted out for first-time offenders who unwittingly harbour illegal immigrants and offenders who repeatedly or deliberately harbour illegal immigrants. 15. Mr Goh Choon Kang asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will consider introducing amending legislation to require housing agents to ensure that tenants they introduce to landlords are not immigration offenders.”
“Police does not track offences committed by culprits who are under influence of alcohol. However, Police's assessment is that alcohol intoxication has not been a significant factor contributing to crimes. The small number of crimes where alcohol was a factor are generally limited to crimes against persons, such as assaults and outraging of modesty. Police does not have the breakdown of arrests for drink driving by sex or age. However, as the minimum age for holding driving licences is 18 years old, cases of youths involved in drink driving are rare. MEDICAL EXAMINATION REPORTS OF FOREIGN PRACTITIONERS 5. Mr Tay Beng Chuan asked the Minister for Health whether his Ministry will consider accepting medical examination reports from qualified practitioners in other countries for the purpose of issuing employment passes to foreign talents who are required to undergo a medical examination in Singapore.”
“The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) has issued clear Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to its enforcement units on the procedures to follow for gaining entry into industrial and commercial premises to carry out their official duties. Under the SOPs, officers are not allowed to conduct inspections alone. Inspections have to be carried out by a team of not less than 2 persons. When conducting inspections, all SCDF officers, including civilians, are required to produce their Warrant Cards, without demand, when seeking entry into premises. Where the SCDF officers fail to produce such identification, the owner/occupier may refuse them entry into the premises. If there is suspicion of unauthorized entry by persons claiming to be SCDF officers, the owner/occupier of the premises can call the SCDF to verify the identity of the persons. All SCDF officers are briefed on their powers to enter into premises for official purposes under the Fire Safety Act, and the seriousness of abusing such powers. ALCOHOL-RELATED CRIMES 4. Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh asked the Minister for Home Affairs, based on annual records of crimes committed from 1990 to 1999, whether alcohol was a significant causal factor of these crimes and what was the trend for women and youth offenders being arrested for drink driving and other crimes related to alcohol.”
“But we will continue to publicise this and I have asked SIR to send the pamphlets to all households that pay property tax to remind them of the requirements, and this will be done very soon. Besides publicising the requirements of the law, the authorities have also been meticulous in examining the circumstances and facts of each case, before a decision is taken as to whether to charge a landlord in Court. Internal guidelines to determine whether an offender should be charged in court have been in place all the while. Over the years, the guidelines have been fine-tuned to ensure their relevance and effectiveness. 1.30 pm”
“These due diligence requirements to check on potential workers or tenants are not onerous. Indeed, they are based on common sense. Surely, it cannot be unreasonable to require the employer or landlord to do some straightforward checks on the status of his foreign employee or tenant, especially as the safety and security of the community and country are at stake. The need for such checks has been well-publicised. The due diligence requirements were publicised in the newspapers in 1993, when the requirements were first introduced. In 1998, when the requirements were refined, they were also publicised. These requirements have been reported through radio and television news stories. These same requirements have also been covered in the popular television documentary, Crime Watch, in 1996, 1997, 1999 and this year, each episode attracting about 730,000 viewers watching the English and Mandarin channels. The HDB in 1998 sent out a letter to all the tenants and lessees of HDB flats. I will also ask the Clerk to distribute a copy of that letter. [Copies of letter distributed to hon. Members]. This letter dated 20th July 1998 set out very clearly, step-by-step, what a landlord must do when he were to let out his premises. And this letter reaches to more than 80% of the Singapore households. For the remainder, I suppose they are educated enough; otherwise they would not be living in private property and they should be well read. Sir, recently SIR has also pamphlets showing how to verify the status of foreigners and these have been placed at the NPP and HDB branches. In short, there has been more than enough publicity on this issue.”
“" Hence, it is instructive to note that both the courts and the Government are both agreed on the importance of ensuring the effective enforcement of our immigration laws and the need to impose a high level of diligence on those employing or giving shelter to foreigners. By ensuring that immigration offenders have no place to stay and no place to work, we are addressing key factors on the demand side of the equation. Therefore, a person who provides shelter or work to the foreigner must exercise due diligence in letting out his premises to foreigners or in employing them. In view of the observations of the Chief Justice, the Immigration Act was amended in 1993 to expressly require both employers and landlords to carry out certain basic checks, failing which they would be liable for the offence of employing or harbouring an immigration offender, should the worker or tenant turn out to be one. The employer or landlord was required to check the passport or travel document of the foreigner he intended to employ or let out his premises to. The due diligence requirements were refined again in 1998, to make clear what persons who give shelter to foreigners must check before letting out their premises to them, and in view of the fact that visit passes were no longer endorsed in the passport. The landlords were required to check the original immigration and work passes, and check that the particulars on the passports correspond with the particulars set out in the passes. If the employer is named, the landlords should also check with the employers to verify that the prospective tenants are indeed employed by them. If employers or landlords are not sure, they can also call SIR or the Ministry of Manpower to check the status of the employee or tenant.”
“Many employers and harbourers of immigration offenders managed to secure acquittals by simply arguing that they were shown a copy of the work permit by the foreign worker, even though the work permit later turned out to be a forged one. Sir, in 1991, Justice F.A. Chua in the High Court, held in the case of Vadivelu that, to rebut the presumption of knowledge in a charge of harbouring an overstayer [and this case refers to a harbourer], a person must show that he has exercised due diligence in ascertaining the immigration status of the overstayer. In that case, Justice Chua said that the social policy of the Immigration Act, and I quote him, "would not be achieved if mere negligence or recklessness on the part of the accused to enquire about the status of the illegal immigrant or overstayer, if he knows or has reason to believe that the person is a foreigner, would be sufficient to rebut the presumption of knowledge." In an appeal case heard at the High Court in 1993, the Chief Justice himself affirmed the strict requirement for employers [and this time he refers to employers] to comply with the Immigration Act to thoroughly check the foreign worker's status before employing him. The Chief Justice said clearly and firmly in his judgement that, and I quote him, "to allow an employer to evade the section by shutting his eyes to the immigration or employment status of his foreign employee, would make proper control and enforcement impossible. It cannot be placing too onerous a duty upon employers in Singapore to require them to screen their foreign workers before employing them to ensure compliance with immigration policy and the law.”
“The Police and SIR regularly conduct raids at construction sites, forested areas and other possible hideouts to arrest and flush out immigration offenders. But all these efforts will come to nought if we do not deal with the people who maintain, support or facilitate the immigration offenders' stay in Singapore, namely, the employers and harbourers of immigration offenders. So long as there is work or a place to stay, the immigration offenders problem cannot be tackled effectively. By providing them work or a place to stay, these employers and landlords make it harder for the authorities to find and catch the immigration offenders. In recent years, the number of persons arrested for employing or harbouring immigration offenders has increased from 230 in 1996, to 326 in 1997, 436 in 1998 and 698 in 1999. Stricter enforcement in recent years has led to more employers and harbourers being arrested. Since 1984, the Immigration Act has been amended several times to tighten up the problems of enforcement. The mandatory jail sentence for convicted harbourers and employers is not a new punishment introduced only recently. Let me repeat this: The mandatory jail sentence for convicted harbourers and employers is not a new punishment introduced only recently. It was introduced way back in 1984, when the Immigration Act was amended to provide for enhanced penalties against immigration offenders, and employers and harbourers of immigration offenders. The mandatory jail term is necessary to send a clear signal to all would-be offenders of our tough stance towards those who give shelter or work to immigration offenders. Before the amendments to the Immigration Act made in 1993, the prosecution had difficulties in securing conviction of errant employers and landlords.”
“Sir, this is a serious subject. Let me answer all these Questions relating to harbouring of illegal immigrants altogether. Let me, first, give the background and the reasons why we have strict laws to deal with the immigration offenders problem. This is not a new problem. It has been with us for a long time. So long as Singapore's economy continues to grow, there will always be desperate foreigners who want to come in here illegally and to stay here illegally to find jobs. They will pose a serious threat to Singapore's safety and security if they are allowed to remain here, particularly in large numbers. Sir, there are four parties who contribute to this illegal immigration problem: (i) the trafficker who smuggles in the illegal immigrants, (ii) the illegal immigrant or the overstayer himself, (iii) the person who gives him a job, the employer, and (iv) the person who gives him shelter. We therefore must have strict laws to deal with all of them. The scale of the problem is large. In 1998, about 23,000 immigration offenders were arrested, comprising 14,700 illegal immigrants and 8,300 overstayers. This number remained unacceptably high last year, with some 17,000 arrested, comprising 11,500 illegal immigrants and 5,500 overstayers. These numbers have grown steadily over the years since the early 1980s. The Home Team adopts a multi-pronged approach in dealing with the immigration offenders problem. To deter illegal immigrants and their traffickers, the Singapore Immigration and Registration (SIR) conducts strict checks at all our entry points. More than 40 Police Coast Guard boats patrol our waters intensively every day.”
“We can have free speech anywhere in Singapore so long as it conforms to the law. Nobody says he cannot have free speech. He can do so anywhere so long as he conforms to the law. He can do so on the Internet, if he is Internet-savvy enough. He can talk to a lot of people that we do not even know of. On registration and sending the particulars to ISD, let me tell him that ISD has a lot of better things to do than just to read his name. HARBOURING OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (Policy review) 9. Mr Heng Chiang Meng asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will consider amending the legislation on harbouring of illegal immigrants so as to differentiate landlords who may be unintentional offenders from those with intent, and to prescribe lesser penalties for the unintentional offenders. 10. Mr Sin Boon Ann asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Government will consider reviewing its policy of mandatory jail sentence for those convicted of harbouring illegal immigrants. 11. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Singapore Immigration and Registration Department has ever had internal guidelines to determine whether a person who committed an immigration offence should be charged in court. 12. Mr Simon S C Tay asked the Minister for Home Affairs why the authorities have seen fit to prosecute ordinary landlords for renting premises to tenants who have turned out to be illegal immigrants.”
“Sir, if we are afraid of having a debate with the Workers' Party, we would not be here. And if we are afraid of having a debate with the Workers' Party, he would not be given a chance to be here, by us, by the way. Mr Jeyaretnam rose.”
“Sir, first, the question on redevelopment. There is this saying - I think you all understand - that when you get to the bridge you will cross it. You have not got to the bridge yet; so wait for the time to come. If there is redevelopment, we will find another place. On language, we say four official languages. But if he cannot speak any of them, and want to speak in Cantonese, go ahead.”
“Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam has always asked for a debate. We can have a lot of debates in this House. Any time he wants it, we can have it. And he can stand up there and make his speech as he wants, except that when we give an answer, he is not around to listen. So there is no point talking about a debate with us when he does not even bother to stay in the House. There is nothing to stop him from going to the Speakers' Corner and make a speech. So, do not worry about where. If he wants to debate, do it right here. This is where the public forum really is for a proper policy debate, not in the Speakers' Corner. But let me put it more seriously. It is not just a question of symbolism. Of course, we have a place to show. It is symbolism in the sense that, yes, if you want a place, there is a place. But for free speech, I think we must not delude ourselves. He can do so on the Internet. He can do so with the press. He can do so in any place he wants, subject to the rules of the land. And he can do so right here. So, what is the worry about having free speech? There is free speech all the time. It is a question of whether he is prepared to have it or not. Do not run away from it. When we give him an answer, stay here to listen.”
“Sir, I have mentioned that the Bras Basah Park is not suitable, if that is his suggestion. Bras Basah Park is going to be redeveloped because of the Singapore Management University. Hong Lim Park is actually a very suitable location. It has historical significance. Some of the most fiery and important speeches were made at Hong Lim Park. So there is a good reason to go to Hong Lim Park and it is very convenient. It is very accessible. The MRT station is nearby. It is within walking distance of many office workers and even those going home will pass by there. There are two MRT lines, the North-East line as well as the line running along Raffles Place. So I do not think we need to worry about the location because once the place is established as a Speakers' Corner, people will turn up. Have Members been to Hyde Park? It is a very large place and yet people know where the Hyde Park Speakers' Corner is. They are not afraid of losing their way just because it is in some quiet place. On enforcement, as I have said, we hope people will behave themselves and not provoke anybody. If there should be a case to be investigated, it must depend on the facts, the circumstances and the evidence. The police just cannot go around chasing and prosecuting everybody. That is not what the police does.”
“Sir, I think the police has a lot of better things to do than just to carry a tape recorder and tape speeches. But Mr Chiam should not be suspicious when people turn up with a tape recorder. Let me tell him why. Because this is something new, there could be people who are interested to go there to speak and perhaps to make a name for themselves. There could also be people who are really interested to find out what is going on and what the speakers will say. Maybe they will say something interesting. So curious onlookers may carry a tape recorder. Or a research student, for example, writing about political developments in Singapore and he thinks that it is such a grand thing that we have taken such a step, he may carry a tape recorder. Who knows? Journalists will also carry a tape recorder. They will even carry a video recorder, and not just a tape recorder. Therefore, Mr Chiam should not be suspicious. At the same time, if he has something to say, do not be afraid to say it. That is the best test, is that not?”
“This subject was raised last year and there was a lot of public interest among certain groups of people who said that we should be like some other countries. We should have a free speech corner to allow people to say anything they want without regulations and without the need to apply for a Public Entertainments licence and so on. We thought it was not quite a good idea. But, in the end, we thought that if that is really what the people want and we can manage the risk, we will provide for it. Basically, if the people really want this, we will let them try it out. We hope that they can make it succeed.”
“Firstly, Prof. Chin is right. The licensing requirement is granted an exemption by the Exemption Order of the Public Entertainments Act. All the speaker needs to do is to put his name down and he would be given a form which would state the conditions. He would sign it and he would go forth and speak. In that sense, there is no licensing. It is simply that he has indicated his interest and then he can go ahead and speak, having taken note of the conditions. For people who go to the Speakers' Corner and speak there or as a member of the audience, we hope that they will be sensible enough not to provoke any disturbance and not to disturb the peace. Of course, if the peace is disturbed and people complain about it, the Police will be there.”
“Regulations will also be required to facilitate the smooth operation of the Corner as well as to deal with any breaches of the conditions. In addition, some physical improvement works will also be carried out at the site. For example, signages need to be erected, and the boundaries of the Speakers' Corner clearly demarcated, so that speakers will know where the Corner extends to. We are targeting to complete all preparations and launch the Speakers' Corner by end August 2000. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Just a matter of clarification, Sir. The Minister just now mentioned the registration process and said that once the registration is done, permission would be given to speak. I would just like him to clarify that actually no permission needs to be given because it is just a registration process and it is to be distinguished from the licensing process, which is a different form of registration. That is the first point. My second point is this. The Minister points out that there will be very few uniformed officers on patrol in the Speakers' Corner. What would happen if there is a rowdy scene provoked by speeches or otherwise? What would happen in that case? Who will maintain law and order?”
“To safeguard racial and religious harmony, the rules prohibit religious speeches, and speeches that would cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different racial or religious groups. The speakers can speak on any other subject they wish, in any of our official languages. They must naturally abide by the laws of Singapore, including the Sedition Act, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and the Penal Code. For example, if a speaker issues a threat to kill someone, it will be treated as criminal intimidation. A speaker who makes slanderous remarks can be sued for defamation. As at the Hyde Park Speakers' Corner, no sound amplification devices will be allowed. This is to reduce noise pollution, and ensure that no one speaker drowns out the other speakers. The Police will adopt a minimalist, hands-off approach towards the Speakers' Corner. The Police will not try to control activities there, as long as there is no law and order problem. But should rioting, affray, or a breach of the peace occur, the Police will take firm action to prevent the situation from getting out of hand. For less serious offences, the Police will investigate and take appropriate action, ranging from verbal and written warnings to suspensions from speaking at the Corner, depending on the severity of the breach. Assoc. Prof. Chin has asked about the steps to be taken to establish the Speakers' Corner. The Ministry of Home Affairs will gazette an exemption under the Public Entertainments (PE) Act to exempt public speeches at Speakers' Corner from licensing requirements. The exemption order will specify the three basic conditions which I have just outlined.”