Immigration (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

3.07 pm

The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Immigration Act is the primary piece of legislation in Singapore's statutes that serves to regulate the entry, stay, and exit of foreigners. It has served us well over the years, providing a practical legal framework to facilitate the movement of people, while keeping criminal and undesirable elements at bay. We last amended the Immigration Act in 2004. Since then, the security environment has changed. Those seeking to illegally penetrate our borders have evolved their modus operandi as they seek new ways to exploit any weakness in our border control measures. Transnational criminal syndicates have also become more sophisticated in their attempts to move people or conveyances illegally in and out of our country. While we recognise that the vast majority of people who come to or pass through Singapore are law-abiding, we cannot relent in our efforts and must continue to maintain a tough stand against all immigration offenders.

The Immigration (Amendment) Bill will equip us with enhanced legislative tools in two key aspects, namely safeguarding the security and integrity of our borders, and helping to maintain law and order in Singapore.

Let me start with the key amendments to strengthen Singapore's border security. First, clauses 11, 13, and 15 of the Bill introduce new sections 22A, 23AA, and 23B, to allow the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) to collect more detailed information on arriving persons before they reach our shores. After 9-11, such a system to collect advance passenger information for security management purposes has been implemented in many countries such as the US, UK, Canada and South Korea. It will also help guard against transnational crimes where criminals easily move across borders. Having advance information will facilitate quick identification of travel patterns, and provide some lead time to deal with security threats and criminal elements.

Clause 4 of the Bill introduces a new section 5B to enable the Minister to require the operators of gazetted checkpoints in facilities such as privately-owned marinas to provide and fund specific security facilities and resources for the proper, secure and efficient functioning of these authorised checkpoints. For example, ICA may require the operators to enact barriers for entry and exit, and deploy Auxiliary Police Officers at these premises. These operators will also have to meet our border security standards based on the prevailing threat assessment.

In addition, clause 3 of the Bill amends section 5 to allow the Minister to require operators to fund the provision of immigration clearance by ICA at these privately-owned premises. This will include marinas such as Raffles Marina and the Republic of Singapore Yacht Club.

Page: 478

The new section 5 will also allow ICA to fine errant operators for security lapses. Errant operators will be subject to fines of not less than $100,000 and not more than $200,000. In the case of a continuing offence, a further fine not exceeding $2,000 for every day or part thereof during which the offence continues after conviction may be imposed. Clause 28 of the Bill amends section 57 to help us deal with immigration offences by criminalising the manufacture and trafficking of immigration paraphernalia used for making forgeries. This includes stamps, seals, plates, machines or other things that may be used for the purpose of unlawfully altering or forging immigration documents. The penalty for the offence is a fine not exceeding $8,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or both.

Over the last five years, the number of persons arrested for possession of immigration forgery paraphernalia has increased significantly from just four cases in 2007 to 25 in 2011. This amendment seeks to arrest this rising trend.

For persons found in possession of immigration paraphernalia, the Bill includes rebuttable presumptions that the person knew that the immigration paraphernalia was or would be used for forgery, if the immigration paraphernalia was under his custody or in his control when the forgery was made, or if the paraphernalia was specifically designed or adapted for making forgeries. The accused person can rebut the presumptions by producing evidence that he had no knowledge that the immigration paraphernalia was used for forgery, or that it was specially designed to create forged documents.

Clause 9 of the Bill amends section 17 to provide that a vessel can be ordered by a police officer or immigration officer to stop at any place and makes it an offence to fail to comply with such an order. This amendment will send out a deterrent message to those who try to penetrate our sea borders illegally thereby reducing the number of pursuits at sea and the consequential risk to our officers who patrol the waters.

I will now move to the next set of proposed amendments that will help to maintain law and order in Singapore. Currently, there is no specific law against marriages of convenience, or "sham marriages" as some may call them. Clause 29 of the Bill introduces a new section 57C that will allow ICA to prosecute errant couples, middlemen or marriage agencies involved in marriages which are entered into for the purpose of illegally obtaining an immigration advantage. This will include the grant of visas, visit passes, long-term passes and permanent residence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, most marriages between Singaporeans and foreigners are genuine but there is a small number who use marriage as a ruse so that the purported foreign "spouse" can stay and work in Singapore. The proposed penalty for this offence is a fine not exceeding $10,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or both. These stiff penalties will serve as a strong deterrent against marriages of convenience.

Singapore is not alone in criminalising marriages of convenience. The United States and Australia, for example, have already done so. In Australia, persons convicted of arranging a marriage of convenience are liable to be fined up to A$100,000, or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding 10 years, or both.

The prosecution of marriages of convenience will take into account whether one party in a marriage has offered, given, or received gratification as a reward or inducement for entering into marriage, and other factors such as whether the parties have lived together after the marriage. Given diverse cultural practices and the highly personal nature of marriage, ICA will exercise care and diligence when investigating into any alleged wrongdoing. Ultimately, the courts will have to determine, based on the facts of each case, whether a marriage is bona fide or one of convenience, and impose the appropriate punishment.

Page: 479

Clause 8 of the Bill amends section 11 to empower ICA to impose a good conduct condition on the re-entry permits issued to Permanent Residents (PRs). Today, a good conduct condition is imposed on the entry permits of Permanent Residents. It states that the entry permit may be cancelled if the holder contravenes any law or is involved in any activity which threatens a breach of peace, or is prejudicial to public order or public welfare.

This amendment will harmonise the good conduct condition imposed on the entry and re-entry permits. It allows for greater calibration in our response when PRs contravene the law or are involved in activities that are prejudicial to public order.

In particular, with this amendment, ICA will have the option of revoking an individual's PR status by cancelling his entry and re-entry permits, without having to declare him as a Prohibited Immigrant, as is the current practice.

The vast majority of Permanent Residents in Singapore do not pose any threat to our law and order. This proposed amendment will send out a clear message that while we welcome Permanent Residents, they must respect and abide by our laws.

Finally, Sir, the Bill also includes a number of miscellaneous amendments which are technical and administrative in nature.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, this Bill will strengthen our border security and help us to better maintain law and order in Singapore. It will also strengthen our ability to keep Singapore a safe and secure home for all of us. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.17 pm

Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. I would like to touch on two aspects of it. First, the introduction of the new section 57C, which criminalises marriages of convenience. This is a timely introduction.

I do not know if there are, or can be, any statistics on whether such sham marriages are on the rise. But anecdotal evidence from the ground suggests that they are. This is not surprising, given the growth of Singapore and the many opportunities on offer for those who can gain entry here. As a result, many come here legitimately, but some do not. People marry for a variety of reasons, not all of them have to do with love. However, it is in all our interests to deal with those who use marriage as a transactional device purely to enter, stay and work in Singapore.

Under the old legislation, there was no explicit provision against marriages of convenience. Offenders were dealt with under section 57(1)(k), which was inadequate in both arresting the problem and in the penalties imposed. The new section 57C remedies these shortcomings, and gives the Ministry greater teeth in dealing with such immigration offenders. That is to be welcomed. However, there are three issues which I hope the Minister will clarify.

Page: 480

My first query relates to the evidentiary problems associated with section 57C. In order for the offence to be made out, it must be shown that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the purpose of the marriage was to assist one of the parties to obtain an immigration advantage. More importantly, it must be shown that gratification was involved in the transaction. However, there may be difficulties in proving that gratification had been given or received or offered. As we are dealing with foreign parties, it may be difficult to prove that gratification was involved, particularly where it is given or received overseas.

Further, the requirement of gratification should not be necessary. Proof of gratification would no doubt be strong evidence of a sham marriage, but it should not be a pre-condition. A marriage of convenience entered out of goodwill is no less a sham. And all benefits are not necessarily financial. For example, friends or distant relatives may agree to enter into a marriage of convenience to help one party gain an immigration advantage. While this may be less common, such arrangements are no less an abuse of the system. I would like to clarify how section 57C is intended to catch such arrangements.

My second query relates to section 57C and arranged marriages. While no longer as prevalent as before, there are some communities in Singapore that still carry out the practice of arranged marriages with foreign brides. It is common in arranged marriages that a dowry is given before the marriage, and this would fall within the definition of gratification. In such a situation, the husband will often act as a sponsor for his arranged bride to help her secure a visa to Singapore, and this would be considered an immigration advantage. The Bill does acknowledge arranged marriages by providing a defence of belief on reasonable grounds that the marriage would result in a "genuine marital relationship" even if there is gratification. However, there may be practical problems in proving this defence. The couple may know very little of each other. In fact, that is often the case. The persons who arranged the marriage may likely be out of jurisdiction, and the accused may have difficulty securing evidence from them. Could the Minister clarify what "reasonable grounds" means in such situations?

My next query on section 57 relates to the definition of "immigration advantage". It is presently defined as "the grant or extension of the validity of any visa, pass, permit or re-entry permit". The literal wording of the definition appears to cover situations where the marriage helps one party obtain a Work Permit, an S Pass or a Social Visit Pass. It appears to omit situations where the marriage is used to support an application for permanent residency – not clear, but at least clear if it does not appear to include citizenship. Should the definition of "immigration advantage" not be wider to cover all possible avenues for entry into, or staying within, Singapore? Indeed, as currently worded, the offence would not apply where one party is already legitimately in Singapore on an Employment Pass, but marries to support an application for Permanent Residence or citizenship. Could the Minister clarify the reason for this omission or at least for that definition?

My last query on section 57C is really a practical one. It takes some time when the matter was first investigated and then the matter goes to trial and finally, conviction or result one way or the other. Will the couple or, at least, will the foreign spouse be permitted to remain in Singapore throughout that time? Because it takes a long time, you may end up not allowing a foreign spouse to be in Singapore and therefore, keeping two legitimately married people apart.

Page: 481

Next, I would like to comment on the Good Conduct Condition for Permanent Residents. Our position towards PRs has always been this: they live and work in Singapore under the condition that they accept and observe all of Singapore's laws. Should they flout the law, they must face the consequences of their actions. These consequences include the penalties stipulated under our law and, possibly, the revocation of their right to remain here. The amendment to the Good Conduct Condition is consistent with this stand. It extends the right to revoke for a wider range of offences committed, including offences that do not carry a jail term.

That being said, the ramifications of the amendment are hardly insignificant. Fines are imposed for a wide range of offences, including relatively minor misdemeanours.

I know it will be said that although the ambit is now wider, the State will not exercise its discretion capriciously or for trivial offences. It will also be said that this amendment changes little for the vast majority of PRs in Singapore, who are law-abiding. But the amendment is most significant in the message it sends, and this is a message which can be interpreted in two ways.

First, it reinforces the position that PRs are welcome to live and work in Singapore as long as they abide by and respect our laws. That is uncontroversial.

But the second is more difficult. This amendment comes at a time when sharper distinctions are being drawn between citizens and PRs, and not just in terms of Government policies, but in society as well. I do not think anyone will dispute that citizens should enjoy greater privileges compared to non-citizens. But what is often forgotten in this debate is that there are many PRs in Singapore because there are Singaporeans who want or need them here.

About a year ago, a resident attended my Meet-the-People Session (MPS) and complained bitterly that there were too many foreigners living in Singapore. The reason he came to see me? To ask for Permanent Residency for his foreign spouse. The man did not consider his wife "foreign". And I can understand why. We do not consider people "foreign" if we have a close connection with them. And that is true for many of us. Many PRs are married to Singaporeans. Many PRs are fathers, mothers, siblings and related to Singapore citizens. Many work for Singaporean businesses and help them to stay competitive. Many have started businesses and have hired Singaporeans. For these Singaporeans, it is important that the PRs remain in Singapore. For this group, the message from this amendment may not be so positive.

Permanent Residency is not a status to be conferred, or revoked, lightly. To give the State more discretion to revoke is one solution. That may be more expedient, but I am not sure that is the best solution. I would prefer if we scrutinised more carefully how Permanent Residency is granted in the first place. For if it is given only to truly deserving cases, then it necessarily should be more difficult to take it away. More importantly, we should not ignore the message we are sending by this amendment.

Page: 482

If we wish to include offences which impose fines, may I suggest we set a threshold for such fines. We have done this in other cases. For example, to disqualify a person from standing for elections, the fine imposed must exceed $2,000. Similarly, a person may be disqualified from being a member of the Council of Presidential Advisers or the Presidential Council for Minority Rights if he has been convicted of an offence and received a fine exceeding $2,000. Alternatively, we could take the approach of listing the type of offences where a PR may have his status revoked upon conviction. And that is how we disqualify members of the Medical Council or company directors, and there are many examples in our books.

This will reinforce the important message that we expect PRs to respect and observe our laws, while providing assurance that Permanent Residency will not be revoked for trivial offences. It will provide some comfort, certainty and peace of mind to many Singaporeans who may be affected by the change. With that, I support the Bill.

3.26 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, the Bill makes several significant amendments. In particular, there are several provisions allowing for advance screening of persons intending to enter Singapore, by requiring advance passenger information to be provided by operators of various modes of transport. These provisions appear to be geared towards bringing Singapore in line with best practices advocated by the United Nations, World Customs Organisation and the International Air Transport Association to enhance border security. The enhanced screening procedures will give our authorities more reaction time to decide whether certain persons should not be allowed to enter Singapore for security reasons. And this is useful.

There are some other aspects of the Bill which I seek clarifications on. First is regarding exclusive immigration clearance. Clause 3 amends section 5 to provide for the Minister to designate certain immigration checkpoints for the separate and exclusive clearance of a particular person or class of persons. Earlier, in the Second Reading speech, the Minister mentioned something about "private marinas". I do not know whether I heard him correctly. In this context, would the Minister elaborate on which person or class of persons the Government has in mind for such exclusive clearance? I am also concerned about the justification for such and the implications of this new exclusive clearance on the workload at our existing checkpoints, particularly the land checkpoints. Does the Government have any projections of a caseload expected under this exclusive clearance scheme? Will more manpower be recruited? Or will existing ICA officers be drawn away from the ordinary checkpoints to man these special posts?

Second, facilities at authorised checkpoints. Under clause 4, the new section 5B provides that where a new checkpoint is designated, the Government can require the owner or occupier of the premises to make facilities and alterations to it according to the Government's requirements at the cost of the owner or occupier. These may include providing facilities to immigration officers stationed there. If the owner or occupier does not comply, he is guilty of a criminal offence. Would the Minister clarify what the rationale is for requiring the owner or occupier to pay for the facilities required by the Government and to criminalise his non-compliance? If the Government requires those facilities, should the Government not be paying for them or at least co-sharing the costs?

Page: 483

Third, marriages of conveniences. Clause 29 introduces a new offence of entering into a marriage of convenience in exchange for gratification. The mischief targeted appears to be sham marriages to exploit immigration concessions to spouses to enter or remain in Singapore and the middlemen who profit from making such arrangements. Such marriages are a threat to the integrity of the immigration system. We are not alone in tackling this issue as other countries also prohibit sham marriages as part of their immigration laws, for example, Canada and the United States. The common concerns are several. Firstly, persons who exploit immigration laws in this way make it harder for genuine immigrants to enter. Secondly, marriages of convenience may also cause financial and emotional strain to spouses or families who are deceived. Thirdly, once the foreigner enters the country on such pretences, the person will consume social services and be a drain on taxpayers' funds.

The new section 57C will criminalise marriages which are contracted for the purpose of gaining an immigration advantage, and where one party receives, or is offered, a gratification, does so. Would the Government provide more details as to any trends or evidence indicating that such a phenomenon is a problem here? For instance, is there evidence of people filing for divorces shortly after gaining residency, and/or then trying to bring in a spouse from their home country?

One notable feature of the proposed section 57C is that it requires a gratification to be offered or received by a party to the marriage. Earlier, in the Second Reading speech, the Minister mentioned that gratification or otherwise would be taken into account, but from my reading of the clause, it seems that gratification is a necessary ingredient of the offence. However, it is possible that there could be a sham marriage without any gratification changing hands. For instance, a Singaporean or Permanent Resident may want to help an acquaintance get out of poverty in a home country, with no intention of having marital relations. Another instance could be where one party is deceived into thinking there is a genuine relationship, without being induced by any gratification. In such situations, the marriage could still be a marriage of convenience even though no gratification changes hands.

Should these perpetrators not be prosecuted as well? From what I understand, this requirement of gratification or consideration is not required to constitute a marriage of convenience in some other countries, for example, under the US' Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments. By the Bill requiring a gratification to change hands, is the provision too narrow?

Finally, Sir, the proposed section 57C(4) provides that even if a party were to enter a marriage where he knows the purpose of it is to give the other party an immigration advantage, and has received a gratification to do so, he will have a defence in court if he can show reasonable grounds to believe that the marriage would result in a genuine marital relationship. It is thus open to a person who has received an inducement or reward to enter a marriage to still say that he believed he was entering a genuine marital relationship.

The Explanatory Note to the Bill suggests that such payments could be consistent with a genuine marriage, for example, a dowry payment. As this is a potential loophole to disguise corrupt payments, it is important for the totality of the circumstances to be considered in deciding whether a marriage is indeed a marriage of convenience.

Page: 484

3.32 pm

Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Sir, I rise in support of the Immigration (Amendment) Bill which seeks to strengthen our border security. Singapore strives to be an attractive place to live, play and work. So, it is no surprise that there are foreigners who, otherwise are unable to secure legal entry into Singapore, will attempt to enter illegally. Alternatively, those who may originally secure legal admission may attempt to stay beyond their visas or seek to secure a more permanent status through inappropriate means. Immigration laws affect many different groups of people. They range from tourists, to Work Permit holders, S Pass holders, Employment Pass holders as well as those on dependant visas, student visas, and Long-Term Visit Passes.

As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents in Singapore almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.35 million in June 2010. Similarly, the number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period. In contrast, the number of citizens grew modestly from 2,985,000 in 2000 to 3,230,000 in June 2010.

The Immigration Act went through its last major amendments in November 2004. Although that was almost eight years ago, the immigration landscape has changed significantly. Compared to 2004, immigration is a lot more politically contentious today as we continue to seek a new consensus on how much immigration and what type of immigration is appropriate for Singapore. Our demographic inadequacies and our economic needs suggest that immigration is here to stay. In turn, this requires us to enhance our immigration controls as well, even as our immigration laws seek continually to facilitate the legal entry of bona fide non-citizens into Singapore. As such, our immigration policies and laws have to be kept updated, if not ahead, of the changes. Sir, the Immigration Act increasingly affects, albeit indirectly, Singaporeans as well. This is a point I will touch on later.

My remarks this afternoon focus on two areas. They are: One, the power of the ICA to impose, vary, or set conditions for the validity of the re-entry permits as well as the entry permits. Two, the criminalisation of marriages of convenience. I do not have issues with the mechanics of the proposed amendments as I believe they are needed to ensure that the ICA is empowered with the requisite powers to do its job well. Instead, my remarks focus more on how the impact of the proposed legislation on the relevant stakeholders and how our immigration regime, which comprises our laws, policies and their execution, ought to have a robust reputation internationally.

The Bill seeks to provide the ICA with enhanced powers to regulate the entry into, and departure from, Singapore. For example, clause 8 of the Bill provides for the Controller of Immigration to vary, or revoke re-entry permit conditions and to impose additional conditions. Similarly, clause 7 of the Bill provides for the Controller with the power to vary, impose any condition, or revoke an entry permit.

I support this move to provide explicitly for the Controller, inter alia , with the power to revoke any condition on an entry permit, and to vary, or revoke any condition, or impose further conditions after the issuance of a re-entry permit. Sir, not only is this an expression of our sovereign rights but it also helps the immigration authorities to better manage the legitimate expectations of those already admitted into Singapore as well as those seeking to enter Singapore.

Page: 485

At the same time, the discretionary powers of the Controller are tempered. They are regulated through the proposed section 11(5) and section 10(4). Both provisions provide for the holders of re-entry permits and entry permits the opportunity to be heard as to why the condition of their re-entry or entry permits should not be varied, or revoked, or the additional condition not be imposed. Sir, I welcome this requirement for the right to be heard.

I hope the ICA and the Ministry of Home Affairs, in dealing with immigration matters, will ensure that the right to be heard is taken seriously, whenever that is provided for, and to consider extending that right where appropriate. The right to be heard is not merely a right of procedural importance but it is also one of substantive importance – not just for the person concerned but for the standing of our immigration regime. In this regard, I am also aware that the Controller's decisions on some immigration cases could turn on intelligence gathered. Wherever possible, I hope that the Controller will disclose as much information as possible, rather than seeking the cover of non-disclosure due to security grounds. It is important that our immigration decisions are not only fair but also seen to be fair.

I also welcome the introduction of the good conduct condition for permanent residents. By enabling the ICA to cancel the re-entry permit (REP) issued to a Singapore Permanent Resident if he contravenes any law or is involved in any activity which threatens a breach of peace or is prejudicial to public order, we can help ensure that only persons of good standing are allowed to continue to be permanent residents. We expect that of new citizens, and we should similarly require that of permanent residents who want to be associated with Singapore.

Sir, at this juncture, please let me now backtrack a little to reflect on the purpose of immigration laws. Such laws, including the Bill we are now examining, are very focused on immigration control. Given the challenges and immense sensitivity that immigration poses in Singapore today, the proposed amendments do take on added poignancy when set against the backdrop of a global competition for talent.

Sir, our immigration regime needs to be sensitive at two levels, both of which may have competing, if not contradictory, objectives. At one level, our immigration regime needs to be responsive to local constituencies in the nation-building quest. At another level, our immigration regime needs to be responsive to the competitive and aggressive immigration regimes in other developed countries that compete to attract the same talent pool as Singapore does.

As Singapore is plugged into the international economic grid, it has to be open to the movement of people, ideas, goods and services. Indeed, Singapore has positioned itself as a "global city", making the quality of openness not just a virtue but a necessity.

Sir, I hope we are moving away from the days when "aliens", especially those who were here legally, were treated as though they had little or no legal rights. With intense competition for talented immigrants, any perception that our immigration regime is capricious, unfair or unprincipled will undermine our efforts to attract immigrants, whether transient or permanent. This applies even to low-skilled foreigners whose presence in Singapore is transient. How we treat them in the immigration process reflects on us as a society. Thus, even as the Bill seeks to widen the scope of the Controller's powers, we should bear in mind that our immigration regime is always subjected to intense scrutiny.

Page: 486

With Singaporeans overseas and Singapore's own urgent need for non-native human capital to drive its economy and grow its population, Singapore has to increasingly adopt international practices and norms if our immigration regime is to be competitive and be governed by the rule of law.

Sir, I now move on to my other area of concern, which specifically relates to the proposed amendment to criminalise marriages of convenience. Clause 29 of the Bill seeks to criminalise marriages of convenience by any person in order to obtain an "immigration facility". This proposed new provision, rightfully, will also cover criminal syndicates and middlemen who facilitate or stand to gain from such illicit practices. While a marriage is a private matter between two persons, there are consequences beyond them, especially if the marriage is a sham one.

Much as the Immigration Act generally applies to non-citizens, the reality of a significant number of international marriages involving Singapore citizens means that our immigration laws now impact upon Singapore citizens to a larger degree than before. Put simply, an international marriage is one where the spouses have different nationalities. In 1998, 33% of marriages registered in Singapore were international marriages. That number increased to four in 10 in 2008, and the figure was as high as 41% in 2005, and it has, in the last five years, stabilised at around four in 10 marriages registered here being international marriages.

This means that international marriages are more popular than inter-ethnic marriages in Singapore. The actual number of international marriages involving Singaporeans is probably higher as not all international marriages contracted outside of Singapore are subsequently registered in Singapore under our Women's Charter or the Administration of Muslim Law Act. Thus, the Singaporean family is increasingly likely to consist of mixed and multiple nationalities.

Further, like the long-standing Marriage Restriction Policy that applies to Work Permit holders, immigration regulations and laws do effectively operate as de facto family law.

Sir, my concern with this proposed amendment centres on the challenges over proof that a marriage was one of convenience. Like other Asian societies, Singaporean men tend to marry "down"", what we call "hypogamy", while Singaporean women tend to marry "up", otherwise known as "hypergamy". This results in proportionately more lowly-educated men and more better-educated women remaining unmarried. For some Singaporean men, the search for love and a life partner extends overseas, usually other Southeast Asian countries. Anecdotally, such overseas brides are becoming popular for Singaporean men who would otherwise probably remain single. There are newspaper reports of matchmaking agencies which specialise in facilitating marital unions between Singaporean men and women from overseas. In Singapore's context, some of these brides have been pejoratively described as "mail order brides".

In many of these marriages, the Singaporean men are in search of love and companionship for life. Their foreign spouses are more often than not in search of a better life in Singapore, and marriage to a Singaporean spouse offers that prospect.

Page: 487

Sir, the proposed new section 57C(1), defines a "marriage of convenience", while subsection 5 defines what could constitute gratification. My concern relating to this provision is whether it will pose major difficulties to the enforcement agencies to invoke it. The proposed amendment in section 57C(4) recognises that some of these marriages may not be bound by love but instead possess a " quid pro quo" element. Such marriages may well be construed instrumentally by spouses as a means to an end. Put bluntly, spouses recognise that there are "transactional costs" for such an arranged international marriage.

Sir, in marriages which are arranged between a Singaporean and a foreigner without the usual courtship ritual, while the criminal intent is presumably absent in many of these marriages, the reality is that the foreigner spouse is very likely to obtain an "immigration advantage" which the foreign spouse may not secure but for the marriage to a Singaporean citizen or permanent resident. Immigration advantage is defined in the proposed section 57C(6) as "the grant or extension of the validity of any visa, pass, permit or re-entry permit".

Mr Speaker, even if one purpose of the marriage was to assist a party obtain an immigration advantage, section 57C(4) of the Bill states that it is a defence if the accused person believed "on reasonable grounds that the marriage would result in a genuine marital relationship". The Bill's Explanatory Statement states that it is a question of fact for the court to determine whether a marriage in question constitutes a genuine marital relationship, and that the court will have regard to "all the circumstances of the case in determining this question of fact".

Sir, I believe that most, if not all, Singapore citizens and PRs and their foreign spouses in such marriages hope that, notwithstanding the arranged nature of their marriages, a genuine marital relationship would follow. But there is no guarantee that the arranged marriages would result in a genuine marital relationship. What happens if the marriage started with the intent of developing a genuine marital relationship but, subsequently, that intent does not subsist? What about a situation where the foreign spouse may not be interested in a genuine marital relationship but the Singaporean spouse is and would want to keep that marital union alive?

Sir, I am all for the criminalisation of sham marriages to ensure that Singapore residents are not used as a "backdoor entry" into Singapore. Putting aside the obvious cases of sham marriages, my larger concern is whether the evidential difficulties of proving a marriage of convenience would render the utility of the proposed section 57C illusory, or its effectiveness more apparent than real. Would not existing provisions in the Penal Code and other legislation be sufficient to deal with those who enter into a sham marriage to gain an immigration advantage? In addition, I hope that the enactment of section 57C will not result in our society having an even stronger negative perception of arranged international marriages. Where immigration laws may operate as quasi-family law, I fear that it is a very blunt tool that could only worsen the odds that such marriages already encounter.

Despite that note of reservation, Sir, I support the policy intention of strengthening our immigration controls that forms the foundation of this Bill.

3.46 pm

Page: 488

Mr Teo Siong Seng (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amendment to the Immigration Act. Section 22A is a new inclusion in the Immigration (Amendment) Act. It now specifies that the master, owner, agent or charterer of every vessel due to arrive at an authorised landing place for persons arriving in Singapore by sea shall provide passenger and crew information beforehand to the Controller, and within such time as may be prescribed.

This means specifically that, instead of furnishing information on crew and passengers to the immigration officer on arrival, the Controller will now have the authority to demand for crew and passenger information even before the vessel arrives in Singapore. Such amendments do fortify the security measures that Singapore needs. Nevertheless, I have some concerns which I would like to highlight here in my capacity as the Immediate Past President of the Singapore Shipping Association and MD of Pacific International Lines.

The shipping industry fully supports the intent of the Immigration (Amendment) Bill 2012's goal of keeping out undesirable persons, goods and conveyances among other factors. Singapore's strategic location, security and stability have made it an extremely attractive destination for shipping-related companies. Singapore has also been the busiest port in the world for the past 10 years. Last year, I believe the total gross tonnage of vessels calling in Singapore exceeded 2.3 billion tons. However, the industry would like to highlight two major concerns.

The first is survival at sea. The United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) says that every State must require the master of a ship flying its flag to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost or to proceed to the rescue of persons in distress.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO)'s Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS) states that the master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance, on receiving a signal from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound by duty to proceed with all speed to their assistance.

Singapore is a signatory of both the UNCLOS and SOLAS, and given her strategic location and the size of her ship registry, there is every possibility that any ships, including Singapore-flag ships, will be in a position to help rescue persons in distress at sea.

While abandoning ship, however, seafarers may not have sufficient time or opportunity to retrieve their identification documents left on board. There will be occasions when the persons in distress that have been picked up by a passing ship might be undocumented migrants or refugees. Merchant ships do pick up survivors at sea who may or may not have their identification papers with them.

There were some cases recently when ICA did not allow the survivors to land in Singapore although the Singapore MPA's Singapore Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre (MRCC) advised the ships to rescue them. In fact, in one very rare case, a foreign flagship managed by a Singapore company picked up fishermen of PRC origins whose vessel had sunk. When this ship arrived in Singapore, the survivors were not allowed to disembark. In the end, the ship owner had to pay for the air tickets to fly them back to China. Fortunately, in this case, the Chinese fishermen had valid papers.

Page: 489

The point is raised on humanitarian ground when ships need to rescue survivors at sea but face immigration problems when entering Singapore. In this regard, the proposed amendments to the Immigration Act, in particular, section 24 "Examination of Persons Arriving by Sea" of the Immigration Act could place excess burdens on merchant ships that have fulfilled their humanitarian and legal obligations and rescued those found in grave peril on the high seas, whoever they are and whatever their origin for being there.

Not only might a merchant ship be detained or, worse, forced to leave Singapore with the rescuees still aboard but the Master, owner, agent or charterer of a vessel with rescuees aboard might find himself being charged as a criminal. The amendments, if passed, will therefore strongly deter the ship master from rescuing these persons in distress in future. Provisions therefore have to be made in the Act for such exceptional cases.

The second concern is on visa requirement for ships schooled from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nigeria. Despite having been given in-principle approval for foreign seamen to sign on, ICA needs foreign crew members from these three countries to have a valid visa. However, most of the time ICA only approves double-entry visa that is valid for about two months. On a very rare occasion, does ICA approve multiple-entry visa for one year. Going to this double-entry visa for two months, the crew member can only go on shore once in two months. Most of the time, they will be held back on board with a landing permit. To overcome this problem, the ship owner has to reapply for the visa multiple times during the ship's crew's stay on board, especially if this vessel is on short haul calling on Singapore on very close frequencies.

For centuries, seafarers have considered it their duty to assist people in peril on the high seas. Today, 100 years after the sinking of the Titanic, this tradition has become more than just a moral obligation and is now enshrined in international law.

Given Singapore's role as an International Maritime Centre and having a major quality Ship Registry, I strongly urge that due consideration be given to the impact of these amendments might have on the duties and responsibilities of seafarers. Sir, with that, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.54 pm until 4.15 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.15 pm

[ Mr Speaker in the Chair]

IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Debate resumed.

Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak. There are three points that I would like to make.

Page: 490

First, I support the positive move to align the Immigration Act to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We should assess each application on its merits and not automatically exclude someone as a prohibited immigrant just because he or she has a mental disorder or defect. By mental disorder, this should also mean that those with mental illnesses. To exclude persons with such conditions without consideration of other factors is discriminatory, and it goes against our very effort to forge an inclusive society.

In particular, we should give due consideration to keeping families intact. I have an MPS case in which an entire family has moved to Singapore, except for one disabled member. This disabled man has no other close relatives back in his hometown. His brothers, who are Singaporeans, care for him and send him for medical treatment in Singapore. Despite my many appeals and his brothers offering to proof to show that they can and are willing to sponsor his stay in Singapore, his applications have been consistently rejected. Eventually, he was not even allowed to continue to stay in Singapore even on extended Social Visit Pass. Can one imagine the pain of this family separation, especially when the separated member so sorely needs the support of his family?

Therefore, I am heartened that the Government has taken another step forward to mitigate the social stigma of persons who have mental disorders or defects. It may be a small step but, nevertheless, a significant one in the right direction, signalling that we consider persons with disabilities to be equal and integral members of our inclusive and progressive society.

Second, I support the provisions to formally impose and enhance penalties against marriages of convenience. I believe many of us in this House would remember that in 2010, ICA uncovered a syndicate which was brokering sham marriages. The syndicate was paid large sums of money by foreign nationals to source for local men willing to enter marriages of conveniences, so as to enable the foreigners to secure immigration benefits to stay longer in Singapore. These local men involved were paid for their participation in the scam.

Marriage is a sacred union of two individuals to share their lives as one entity. It certainly should not be used by unscrupulous individuals to elicit an immigration advantage. The new provisions will therefore send a strong deterrent message to anyone intending to undermine the sanctity of marriage.

However, ICA and the relevant Ministries or agencies must also exercise due diligence and fully investigate such cases. The suspected foreign spouse should not be summarily deported, especially before the verdict is out. As it is, I have a case at hand in which the foreign wife had to be deported to China because she was suspected to be in a sham marriage with this man. And, quite unfortunately, it did not help that the woman was pulled off the street as both of them were walking along a street somewhere in Geylang. The man came to me at MPS several times crying and appeared to be very sincere and very much in pain because of the separation. We must not wrongfully separate families. And perhaps it would be useful if the ICA and the Minister could clarify and explain to us what are the kinds of due diligence that would be carried out so as to provide assurance and boost public confidence.

Third, I feel that our legislation should be more understanding towards foreign spouses who married Singaporeans and have Singapore citizen children. For example, I had come across an MPS case in which the wife remains a non citizen, despite having lived in Singapore for more than 20 years and having raised citizen children. Such applications for citizenship, sometimes even PR, are consistently rejected.

Page: 491

Usually, the reasons for rejection are not cited in the reply letters from the authorities, except if it is because it had exceeded the age criterion. I can only hazard a guess that for such instances, it is because the family's combined household income is not high enough. But, Sir, there is an irony here. Precisely because she is not a citizen, the family's financial burden is likely to be higher than normal. This makes it even harder for the family to support themselves adequately. Giving her Long Term Visit Pass or even the new Long Term Visit Pass Plus is not sufficient. The latter clearly has more benefits than the former and is supposedly applicable to foreign spouses who have Singapore citizen children. However, the prospect of getting such an approval is uncertain and can be relatively low, and there is also no long-term security for the person involved as well as the entire family.

While our policy intent is to admit higher quality foreigners who are deemed to be more able to contribute to the nation, we should not neglect the contributions of a foreign woman or man married to a Singaporean man or woman and having raised Singaporean children. She or he is not going anywhere and neither will the Singapore man or woman nor children, in good mind and conscience, forsake the person.

Sir, I am not advocating for indiscriminate admission of foreigners to Singapore. There is a limit to how much and how many our land can hold. However, we need to understand that marriage is a lifelong commitment. It concerns people's lives. And in such cases, these are Singaporeans who have decided to build a future with foreign partners. We should not make it any more difficult for couples who have Singaporean children. We should also take care in designing policies such that it does not come across as the Government trying to tell us, even if it is very subtly, who we can or cannot marry. In helping these foreign spouses, we would not only be helping the individuals themselves, but also strengthening Singaporean families. With that, I support the Bill.

4.22 pm

Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have more than half a million Permanent Residents in Singapore at last count. There is another million non-resident foreigners working and living in Singapore. At present, we have 5.2 million people here. Some of our infrastructures are already operating at full capacity. Many public infrastructures are stretched to maximum and some public amenities indeed did break down.

As it is, even with the tighter control and increased stricter qualifications, there are calls in some quarters of Singapore that this number is still too much. We hear many Singaporeans attributing blame to foreigners for the many inconveniences they encounter; from the rising property prices, to Primary school registration, keen competition for academic scholarships as well as being displaced in the jobs that they are able to do as well, right down to domestic marital issues and sham marriages or marriages of convenience. Some are complaining that because of the large influx of foreigners in Singapore, they are beginning to feel like strangers in their own country.

Page: 492

Sir, to be sure, many of these complaints are valid. For instance, foreign bosses employing staff from their own countries many times with dubious experiences and qualifications have resulted in employment complaints from locals and have contributed to cynicism that have worked itself into our social fabric. Many aimed to be Permanent Residents (PRs) because it brings many benefits. With a PR status, they have job mobility and they can benefit from owning a broader selection of property. While we have adjusted the Dependency Ratio Ceiling for employers, this feeling of antipathy amongst some sectors has not gone away.

On the flip side of the coin, I have heard some Permanent Residents complaining that they have been here for many years and wish to be rooted as Singaporeans but faced repeated rejections. Some have been PRs for more than 10 years and had grown accustomed to the way of life here. After much soul searching and identifying themselves amongst the many Singaporeans whom they have formed bonds with, they want to be rooted here as citizens. Many of these applications have been turned down. One can only imagine how they would feel.

Perhaps, Mr Speaker, Sir, the rejection of those applications is a direct result of the authorities being stricter on the criteria and narrowing our focus on admitting qualified individuals. Many of those rejected are senior staff nurses, medical practitioners and graduates from bona fide universities from China, India and elsewhere. They must surely be ideal for Singapore. But, at the same time, we do have opportunistic PRs who had taken advantage of the residential status that we have accorded them. There are those who have not been domiciled here after successfully getting their PRs. Some professionals, who were granted PRs who are now working elsewhere, continue to possess properties that they have acquired while working here. They are sitting on a handsome nest egg. Amongst them are those who are deriving healthy rental yields from such property, and are presently living and working happily in other countries. While examples like these are not issues of conduct, I would hope that the points that I have raised may be considered when the renewal of the PR status comes due.

Sir, while the Government is amending the Act and looking at ensuring proper behaviour for our PRs, I think we could have taken this opportunity to have done even more. For instance, the Ministry of Finance's IRAS and Ministry of Home Affairs' ICA can jointly look at the phenomenon I had just mentioned. Perhaps introducing a capital gains tax on foreigners and former PRs when they liquidate their properties? A higher tax rate on rental receipts from non-resident PRs who rent out their properties could be implemented. I urge the Government to explore these considerations.

I have also known some with doubtful qualities shown immediately after obtaining their PRs. I have also come across PRs who attacked our way of life and have been incessantly unkind to the extent of making unreasonable demands from our civil servants and Government agencies. This group, I can say whole-heartedly, are the ones we do not and should not want. The Good Conduct condition will serve Singapore well. The review of the PR's conduct when the status comes up for renewal, or when an application for the citizenship is made, is a good move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while we address and amend our laws to plug possible loopholes in our immigration policy, I would like to urge the agencies take a balanced approach in dealing with potential immigrants. Recently, MAS had withdrawn the Financial Investor Scheme and have refocused and revamped the Global Investor Programme. I applaud this move. This has sent a strong signal to would be PR seekers that Singapore welcomes your investment but we base our decision geared towards the applicant's show of rootedness in Singapore. This rootedness can be evidenced by both the extent of their business and investment contribution and their physical presence in Singapore. It is safe to say that many of such applicants have found that the Singapore way of life is what they want, compared to that of where they grew up in. This is where they want their children to grow up and to be in National Service next to the other sons of Singapore.

Page: 493

With the interplay between the Code of Conduct for PR applicants and now, that of the Good Conduct conditions for entry and re-entry permits, we can ensure that Singapore admits migrants who will continue to keep Singapore's standing high amongst other nations.

With the amendments and inclusion of Good Conduct conditions, the Government is further addressing the selection of qualified migrants. I started my speech giving anecdotes of some of the complaints of Singaporeans, but I am heartened, however, that I have also heard many discussions from level-headed Singaporeans, balancing our economic prerogatives, social mores and norms, as we steer forward. The call to integrate socially must continue and all in Singapore must play a part. Sir, I support the amendment.

4.29 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill that will further control the entry of foreigners who do not intend to contribute to our country and economy but merely make use of Singapore for their own illicit activities or profits. The punitive measures designed to criminalise marriages of conveniences and forgery of immigration documents are imperative to deter such practices. In the same vein, the pre-emptive measures to obtain advance information of passengers will help us to weed out undesirable elements in the first place by denying them entry.

I am heartened to note of the Good Conduct condition for Permanent Residents which will help to mitigate the adverse social impact caused by those who erred on the wrong side of the law. In totality, these are positive measures to assure Singaporeans that while foreigners are key in driving our economy, there are stringent selection criteria that go beyond "taking the good with the bad" and not to bring in foreigners indiscriminately.

Sir, while these control measures are good, I cannot help but feel that we can do more in addressing the negative perceptions that Singaporeans have about foreigners. This is because the legal framework only delineates the parameters the foreigners can operate in; it does not fully address the emotional and social undercurrents that may well threaten our society.

Let us face it − there is indeed a local and foreign divide concerning various issues. People are openly concerned that foreigners are competing with us for good jobs, competing for infrastructure, healthcare services and space and competing for the attention of our Government. Singapore has always been an entrepot city that is built up by an immigrant society through our forefathers. So, what has changed? There is a need to probe deeper into the psyche of our people and not brush this off as xenophobia, to properly address the emotive aspects amongst others.

Page: 494

One area is the economics of why there is a concern of foreign manpower. Besides bringing in foreign manpower in the retail and hospitality sector, we have also brought in many foreign professionals, managers and executives in the banking, finance and IT disciplines. While they have value added with their expertise and supplemented the local workforce, they are often pointed out as competitors to the local born and bred Singaporeans for good jobs. I am however heartened by the string of measures undertaken by the Ministry of Manpower this year to tighten Work Passes, including Employment Passes and tripartite guidelines. The measures were short of a foreign PME dependency ratio and labour market testing. However, I await to hear from the Ministry of Manpower in due course their findings and analyses on the efficacy of the new measures in ensuring a "Singaporeans First" approach. In a recent survey conducted in June 2012 of 500 young working adults below the age of 35 years carried out by our labour movement's Young NTUC, foreign talent challenges was the bottom in the list of top 10 concerns when posed the question of "what are their current job concerns". Incidentally, the top three concerns were career development, work-life balance and employment benefits. We have relatively low youth unemployment unlike many other parts of the world, but our youths need to stay vigilant, competitive and employable. Notwithstanding, I am concerned for our local mature PMEs as they are more susceptible to job losses and face greater challenges in getting employed if they were to lose their jobs.

Another aspect is our physical environment. Our current total population stands at 5.26 million of which 3.27 million are citizens, 0.54 million are PRs and 1.54 million are foreigners. Is this the correct proportion or has it become overwhelming for our infrastructure and living space? We need to adequately address how we can create a more acceptable physical space for our citizens and foreigners to live harmoniously side by side with each other.

Finally, I want to raise the point that the new legislative measures, though not targeted at locals, may have impact and hardship on Singaporeans who have foreign relatives, spouses and who are in a relationship with one. Sometimes, unfortunate incidents happen. This proposed amendment allows ICA to cancel the Re-entry Permit (REP) issued to a Singapore Permanent Resident (PR) if he or she contravenes any law or is involved in any activity which threatens a breach of peace or is prejudicial to public order. This is crafted relatively widely and I hope the authorities will handle the cases taking into consideration the entire circumstances of the case and its ramifications, especially if it involves a local and he or she suffers hardship if this is imposed on his foreign relative, spouse or partner.

On the whole, I welcome the amendments to the Immigration Bill which will sharpen the teeth and tighten the immigration procedures. I hope the enforcement authorities will not only have their teeth sharpened but also have a firm bite to prevent and deter those who intend to be above the law.

4.35 pm

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef: Sir, Singapore is an open economy situated at the crossroads of Southeast Asia. It is also a popular transit destination. We are thus subjected to a variety of challenges, one of which represents immigration issues. The amendment to this Bill will ensure we evolve our methodology and strategies in handling these issues head-on. They will also help to address challenges posed by enhanced technology and information technology as well as connectivity in the global world.

Page: 495

One of the appropriate moves that this Bill brings on – which I feel is long overdue – is the tightening of the Act to make it an offence for people to enter into marriages for convenience, whether to gain Entry Visa, Long-Term Visit Passes or PR status. This also aligns with our measures to tighten immigration requirements of late and, of course, we all want to tighten that fault line that is developing, which so many have observed, and we want to create that harmonious co-existence and find the appropriate balance and proportions. Getting tough with sham marriages is necessary to prevent a variety of downstream problems, for example, vice, illegal employment and other related issues. Can I ask the Minister, on the average, whether statistical or anecdotal, how many such cases of sham marriages have we been getting annually and, perhaps, what is the trend that we are seeing in the last three to five years?

It is also necessary to get tougher with middlemen and syndicates that are involved in this. The best approach is to create greater awareness and educate Singaporeans to not even think of entering into such arrangements. But, again, this is not easy to do and we need to keep on reinforcing and highlighting this with a lot of publicity. However, there is also a need to be fair to the genuine marriages and not disadvantage them unnecessarily.

Pertaining to the advance information about passengers arriving in Singapore in the event of the arrival of a high-risk person or vessel, how exactly will this be handled at our point of entry? Will they be turned back and repatriated immediately or be allowed to land here for questioning and detention? Is there going to be a specific time interval that you need to satisfy? Also, Sir, how many immigration offenders do we generally see in a year and how many end up being charged?

Sir, since the introduction of the Biometric Identification System, have there been any significant changes in the pickup rate of immigration offenders and illegals? Has this enhanced Singapore's ability to align at the global level and work closely with organisations like the Interpol? Finally, Sir, I support the Bill.

4.37 pm

Mr Desmond Lee (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to make a few brief comments on five aspects of this Bill. First, about the new offence in clause 29 that specifically targets Marriages of Convenience (MOCs). Previously, people who entered into such arrangements were prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. This attracted a maximum fine of up to $100,000, or imprisonment of up to five years, or both.

Subsequently, when these were prosecuted under the offence of giving false information – under section 57(1)(k) of the Immigration Act – the deterrent effect was substantially diminished as the maximum penalty is a fine of up to $4,000, or imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both.

Page: 496

The new offence in clause 29 recalibrates the deterrent impact as it attracts a maximum fine of $10,000, or jail of up to 10 years, or both. This is appropriate for three reasons: first, MOCs are not easy to detect, as they may involve many intricate layers of deception; second, the act of deceiving immigration authorities is a very serious matter, as it can jeopardise public security. It should therefore be seriously punished; and, third, in the worst sorts of cases, MOCs may even be arranged by, or involve transnational organised crime and people trafficking.

In fact, I would recommend that clause 29 be reviewed so that the maximum fine where human trafficking and exploitation is involved, is significantly high, say, for instance, $100,000. I would also like to ask if the Minister can share with us why, instead of creating this new offence, the prosecution does not continue to prosecute such offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) like it did in the past. Is it because the PCA is not sufficiently specific or sufficiently wide enough to cover such cases?

I would further suggest that, like in the PCA, the Attorney-General's written consent be obtained and furnished to the Court before a charge under this new MOC offence can be pursued in Court. This will act as a safeguard, as investigations into MOC offences are necessarily intrusive and potentially traumatic for genuine couples. Also, when a marriage breaks down, false allegations could be made in the heat of the moment.

My next comment is on clause 8, which amends section 11 of the Act to empower ICA to impose conditions on PRs applying for Re-Entry Permits. Interestingly, the term "Permanent Resident" does not seem to appear anywhere in the Immigration Act.

The Minister earlier shared that ICA will be imposing conditions that effectively widen the circumstances under which a PR's Re-Entry Permit may be revoked. Currently, it can only be revoked if the holder commits a serious offence and is imprisoned as a result.

While I welcome giving ICA greater flexibility to impose proportionate and sensible conditions on PRs, I would urge the Government to continue to exercise this power judiciously and compassionately. For instance, Entry and Re-Entry Permits for PRs should be revoked only if a serious offence is committed. This is because many PRs are spouses, parents or children of Singapore citizens, or have lived many years in Singapore and contributed and assimilated into our community. While we expect them to obey the law like everyone else, they, like everyone else, are not infallible. In particular, we should try our best to ensure that families comprising both Singaporeans and PRs are not needlessly split up as a result.

My third set of comments relate to clauses 11 and 13, which require passenger and crew information to be furnished in advance of the arrival of aircraft and vessels in Singapore, if so required by ICA. These amendments will go some way in further strengthening Singapore's border control and counter-terrorism efforts and allow ICA to more effectively screen passenger arrivals for security risks. This is enhanced by clause 23, which amends section 36B to now allow ICA to share identifiable information, including biometric data about people for counter-terrorism purposes.

This move is timely as many other countries already require the submission of advance passenger information. For instance, US Customs and Border Protection implemented its Advance Passenger Information (API) System some years ago.

Page: 497

However, I have two queries for the Minister: first, airlines and passenger vessels operate across many jurisdictions. Some countries, especially in the European Union, have very strict data protection legislation, which may prohibit the disclosure of passenger information or personal identifiable information, except under certain circumstances or if sufficient safeguards are demonstrated. What would ICA do if these foreign laws prohibit airlines or passenger vessels from complying or fully complying with our own requirements under clauses 11 and 13? How would ICA help these companies that operate across the world resolve these cross-jurisdiction dilemmas.

Second, I would like to ask the Minister, to what extent does this new system aid in the management of international public health risks. I recall, sometime in 2007, a man suffering from extremely drug resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB) had caused an international public health scare when he took two trans-Atlantic flights – one from the US to Europe and another from Europe back to Canada – when he had been told specifically that he should not travel. Supposing in future our Ministry of Health receives intelligence about such a risk, would the Immigration Act, as amended, allow ICA to share Advance Passenger Information with Public Health Officers so that appropriate public health measures can be instituted to protect Singaporeans? I note that under the Infectious Diseases Act, no API power exists.

My fourth comment is about the amendments in clauses 3 and 4 that allow ICA to declare certain places as temporary immigration checkpoints and to impose requirements on owners of such places. The Minister mentioned private marinas and Yacht Clubs. While I accept that illegal landings can take place anywhere along our coastline, I am nevertheless concerned that these private checkpoints, such as jetties and landing berths, may pose security risks. For instance, their legitimacy may provide cover for illicit smuggling of contraband, drugs or firearms. Can the Minister share with us what steps ICA will take to ensure that security at these checkpoints is as stringent as our own regular checkpoints and international passenger terminals?

Finally, I would like to express my strong support for clause 6 of the Bill, which amends the Immigration Act to remove persons suffering from mental disorder from the list of prohibited immigrants. Apart from complying with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which we understand the Government intends to ratify soon, this gesture also goes some way towards reducing the stigma faced by people suffering from mental disability. This is a step in the right direction. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

4.46 pm

Mr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank all the Members who have spoken, and I also appreciate their support for the Bill and the policy intent that underpins it. Several Members have commented on our immigration policies in general. Though that is not directly within the ambit of this Bill, it is important that this House acknowledges the genuine concerns of Singaporeans over immigration policies and strategies. Our immigration policies must be responsive to our social and economic circumstances and needs.

Page: 498

As Members would be aware, over the last few years, we have tightened our immigration framework and put in place more stringent controls on foreign workforce inflow and the grant of PRs and citizenship. This entails choices and trade-offs that we have to make as a society, and these are also outlined in the recent paper, "Our Population, Our Future", just released by the National Population and Talent Division, that aims to foster a national dialogue and consensus on this important and complex issue. I would urge Members and, indeed, all Singaporeans, to participate actively in this process. Our aim, ultimately, is to have a sustainable population strategy that strengthens social cohesion, ensures a good living environment that maintains our economic vitality.

Let me now turn to the points that have been raised by Members on specific aspects of the Bill. First, on Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef's question pertaining to Advance Passenger Information. Indeed, Advance Passenger Information will allow ICA to do early pre-screening of arriving passengers, assess the security risks of the passengers and determine the appropriate course of action against those assessed to be of security risks to Singapore. These actions would include additional security screening prior to entry and denial of entry into Singapore if the risks are assessed to be significant.

I agree with Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Teo Siong Seng that Advance Passenger Information is a pre-emptive measure and will help to strengthen Singapore's border security. With this, ICA will have more lead time − a point that Ms Sylvia Lim made as well − to plan in advance the appropriate course of action to be taken against individuals who might pose a risk to us.

Sir, Mr Desmond Lee spoke about the conflicting situations that some airlines may face if data security laws in their country prohibit disclosure of passenger information. ICA will be working closely with the airlines to implement the Advance Passenger Information regime. As many other countries have already implemented the system, international airlines are generally familiar with the requirements. To address data security law requirements, some international carriers make it known to their passengers on the airline websites and on their tickets and documents that they are legally required to provide Advance Passenger Information to the authorities when travelling to certain countries.

Mr Desmond Lee also asked whether, with the amendment of the Immigration Act, ICA could share the Advance Passenger Information (API) with the Ministry of Health. At this juncture, the API regime is not intended directly to be used to collect travellers' medical information, but one cannot rule that out in the future. The ICA will continue to share information which it has obtained to the extent that is permitted by law, and that includes situations where it is in the public interest to do so. The example he cited was a case in point in that regard.

Let me now turn to imposing security requirements for private operators at authorised areas. Mr Desmond Lee asked about the steps that the Ministry or ICA will take to ensure that small temporary entry points do not pose security risks. Ms Sylvia Lim had a more fundamental question of who and why. First, let me be clear that we do not approve such checkpoints lightly to be an authorised point of entry and departure. We only do so when there is a specific application and it must come from a credible source which provides immigration facilities to Singaporeans, Permanent Residents and foreigners. They must also have a sufficiently high traffic volume to justify the provision of dedicated immigration facilities. In addition, they must also meet our security and immigration function requirements. Indeed, it is precisely to ensure that there are no security breaches that this amendment is being proposed so that all our checkpoints have sufficiently robust security control systems. The proposed amendment will give ICA the necessary powers to ensure that authorised immigration areas in private establishments, such as marinas, meet all the necessary security and immigration functional requirements at all times.

Page: 499

Ms Sylvia Lim asked why the Government does not subsidise this cost since we have assessed it to be necessary to impose such requirements. The question of subsidy does not arise simply because this is at the request of these private operators and, if it is assessed that they meet a certain minimum threshold to justify such provision, then they will have to comply with the security and immigration provision requirements and, quite naturally, have to then bear the costs that are consequential. ICA will not hesitate to take action against those who do not meet the stringent standards. The proposed amendments will allow us, as I have stated earlier, to impose a fine of not less than $100,000 and not more than $200,000. I think these penalties are sufficiently serious to ensure that those who apply for such facilities take it seriously as well.

Mr Desmond Lee has also asked about the steps that ICA can take to ensure that coastal establishments, such as jetties and landing berths, do not pose any security risks. The ICA works closely with the Police Coast Guard to conduct regular checks and surprise security spot checks on these coastal establishments to ensure that there are no security breaches.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now turn to the somewhat delicate and nettlesome topic of marriages of conveniences. The Members who have spoken have given quite strong views. On the one hand, there is a desire for rigorous enforcement of those that are egregious, clear cases of marriages of convenience (MOC), yet we want to be sure that we do not unfairly penalise genuine marriages, and take into account some of the changing norms in our society.

Let me start with some data. Members asked what the trend is. Over the last five years, we have detected an average of about four or five MOC cases a year, which does not sound like a lot. But as Mr Hri Kumar pointed out in his speech, it is also a case of how such cases come to light, the manner of the investigation and the manner of the evidence being procured. But even in that context, for the first six months of this year, we have detected 12 MOC cases. So there is a significant rise, and it is probably symptomatic of a larger trend. We want to introduce new laws to send a strong deterrent message to individuals who contemplate entering into marriages of convenience for the purpose of obtaining an immigration facility, such as PR, Long-Term Visit Passes and Entry Visa.

Mr Hri Kumar asked whether this should apply to PRs as well, and the answer is "yes" because, technically, a Permanent Resident comprises the Entry Permit and that is what the Act applies towards. So, once it affects the Entry Permits or Re-entry Permits, then, effectively, it affects Permanent Residents. For citizens, it is different. It comes under the Constitution. But anyone applying for citizenship would usually have to go through a progression through Visit Passes and Permanent Residents before they get to that stage.

Page: 500

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef raised the issue of middlemen and brokers of marriages of convenience. Ms Tin Pei Ling also brought up the exposure of a sham marriage ring in 2010. We want to take a tough stance against any intermediary who facilitates a marriage of convenience. With this Bill, there will be explicit provisions allowing ICA to prosecute these middlemen and agents.

Members have also spoken about the need to be fair to genuine marriages and the need for due diligence and thorough investigations. I want to assure Members that this will certainly be done and that is, indeed, the intent of ICA. ICA will conduct thorough background checks before going into full-blown investigations and proceed to take action only when there is sufficient evidence that the marriage is one of convenience. ICA will work closely with the Ministry of Manpower, the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, and the Registry of Marriages to investigate suspicious cases.

Mr Hri Kumar, Asst Prof Eugene Tan and Ms Sylvia Lim also asked the question whether the evidentiary tests are being set too high by requiring gratification to be proven. I want to explain to Members how we are approaching this. We are creating a new criminal offence. We want to be careful about it and we thought it would be prudent to therefore have not just subjective criteria but also an objective test to ensure that when action is indeed taken, there are good grounds to proceed. If we did not have the objective tests, then, in fact, we could say all marriages are potentially investigable. On balance, we thought this would be the right way to proceed. I concede that it does impose a higher burden of proof on the prosecution and on the enforcement agencies, but we think that this is the right way to go and we should assess this in practice before we see whether there is a need for any further change.

The point was also raised about traditional marriages where dowries are exchanged but the two parties involved may not have known each other. I think Asst Prof Eugene Tan raised the example of foreign brides and so on.

I want to go back to a point which I have made earlier in the Second Reading speech but also raised in the discussion. The facts that govern whether a marriage is one of convenience cannot be confined to just what occurs at the point of marriage but it is also an ex poste determination. So, we have to look at the facts after the point of marriage as well. We could have a couple who are in an arranged marriage, so they may be strangers, but they may have a genuine intent. Then the question before the courts and, indeed, the enforcement agencies, would be, "What is the evidence of their true intent after the point of marriage?" These will all be taken into account. So the totality of the facts surrounding the marriage would be a key consideration in determining whether it is indeed a marriage of convenience. And so, gratification, whilst it is necessary, is not a sufficient condition of proof.

Mr Desmond Lee made the point about the risk of false allegations and he wanted to know what we can do in order to deter this. First, I want to assure him that ICA will do its thorough background checks precisely because we do not want frivolous complaints. We will take care to ensure that the person is not the unwitting victim of a malicious complaint. Under section 182 of the Penal Code, the authorities can take legal action against any person who knowingly provides false information to allege that a genuine marriage is a marriage of convenience and cause injury or annoyance to an innocent party.

Page: 501

Mr Lee has also asked why the prosecution does not continue to prosecute marriages of convenience under the Prevention of Corruption Act. There were legal impediments to charge marriage of convenience cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act primarily because you cannot always prove corruption in the context of a marriage of convenience, which is why this amendment provides for a specific offence under the Immigration Act.

Mr Lee has suggested that ICA seeks the prosecutor's consent before prosecution can take place. There are existing standard operating procedures for ICA to refer cases to the prosecutor and, for complex cases, such as these, in marriages of convenience, after ICA conducts the investigation, the facts of the case will be forwarded to the prosecutor. I would like to assure Members that for the MOC cases, ICA will seek the concurrence of the prosecutor on the course of action to be taken.

Let me turn to the Good Conduct condition on Re-entry Permits. Let me explain once again that a foreigner who wishes to reside in Singapore permanently may apply for an Entry Permit which confers the PR status on him and then he needs a Re-entry Permit to be able to travel out and back into Singapore. These are the two elements that come together. There is currently a Good Conduct condition in Entry Permits issued to PRs. It states that Entry Permits may be cancelled if the holder contravenes any law or is involved in any activity which threatens a breach of peace or is prejudicial to public order or public welfare. This amendment will harmonise the Good Conduct condition on the Entry Permit with that on the Re-entry Permit as well. The proposed amendment offers greater calibration of responses when Permanent Residents contravene the law or are involved in activities that are prejudicial to public order.

Currently, in cases of serious offences where a jail term has been imposed, we may revoke a foreigner's PR status by declaring him as a prohibited immigrant. And this has consequences beyond just revocation of the PR because it also effectively bans him or her from re-entry into Singapore unless they seek specific permission. With these changes, it gives ICA a wider range of actions to deal with errant Permanent Residents. For relatively minor offences, ICA has always exercised its discretion by issuing warnings as another option.

This goes to the point raised by Mr Hri Kumar. So, rather than define a minimum fine threshold before specific action can be taken, the enforcement agencies today, even without this amendment, have already been exercising discretion, and there is a wider spectrum of options now available to them if this Bill is passed, from warnings to revocation of the Entry Permits and Re-entry Permits to designating them as prohibited immigrants. There is a spectrum of options and this is to allow our enforcement agencies greater flexibility to calibrate their response.

Sir, I want to assure Members that ICA will carefully consider the facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature and type of offence, the severity of the offence and the PR's local family ties before revoking a person's PR status.

Mr Hri Kumar raised the issue and then answered it as well – so I thank him for that – about whether the ambit is too wide. As he said, and I am happy to emphasise, I want to assure the House that the provision will not be used liberally. It will be exercised judiciously and the impact will really be on a very small proportion of those who are minded to flout our laws. There will be due process and safeguards to ensure that the immigration permits of Permanent Residents are not cancelled arbitrarily. The Controller of Immigration will notify the PR in writing that we intend to cancel his permits and the grounds for doing so. The PR can then appeal against this decision. If the appeal is not successful and eventually the immigration permits are cancelled, aggrieved persons can appeal against the cancellation to the Minister for Home Affairs. This would address Asst Prof Eugene Tan's point about the right to be heard.

Page: 502

Let me finally address the point raised by Mr Teo Siong Seng. He has expressed a view from the point of view of the industry, to know whether there is an excessive burden on merchant ships who rescued persons in the high seas on humanitarian grounds. They may not have documents or they may not be sure of their status. I want to stress that we are sympathetic to genuine cases of distress and will not take action against these ship owners who render the necessary humanitarian assistance, or the persons in distress. To go further, ICA will work closely with their local Embassy representatives to facilitate genuine persons in distress with the proper documentation and eventual return to their home country. However, I want to highlight that there are criminal syndicates who fabricate distress as a means to secure landing. We want to make sure that we maintain a tough stance against such intended violations. On balance, the merchant shippers will have to bear this in mind and there is a balance of risks and not unlike, for example, passengers who come on aircraft, there is an obligation on the carrier to repatriate if there is, in fact, an immigration violation which they have not picked up in their due diligence.

Mr Hri Kumar also asked the question, and this is in the context of the marriages of convenience, if there is a long period of investigation and which leads to enforcement, what would be the status of the individual or individuals in the interim period. Given that they are innocent until proven guilty, they will be allowed to stay in Singapore until a charge is made and a conviction is secured.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have substantively addressed the main issues raised by Members. I want to emphasise that our efforts to combat immigration-related offences have led to a decrease in the number of immigration offenders from 7,700 immigration offenders arrested in 2007 to 3,100 immigration offenders arrested last year. But we must not let our guard down and this Bill will strengthen our ability to protect and secure our borders and help us better maintain law and order in a new security environment. May I urge Members of the House to give your support to the Immigration (Amendment) Bill.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for clarification concerning the exclusive clearance provisions. I wonder if he can explain to the House whether the Ministry has any indication of the likely demand for these special checkpoints. There must be a reason why these amendments are being proposed. How many more such checkpoints can we expect and is there a critical caseload we are looking at? I think he also did not address my query about ICA resources and whether additional manpower is needed or it will actually take away people from the ordinary checkpoints.

Mr S Iswaran: Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not moving this Bill because we anticipate a deluge of such applications. Actually, the primary motivation is to be able to impose specific security and other compliance requirements on any entity that is minded to apply for such a facility. I want to be very clear about that. Secondly, the question of ICA resources does not arise per se because we are imposing the burden of the cost on the entity that applies. So, if an application is received and it is deemed to be meritorious and the facility is approved, then there will be an obligation on the entity's part to meet all our security requirements and to pay for the cost of any immigration resources that are deployed there as well. And then Immigration (ICA) would have to recruit the appropriate staffing to meet the challenges there.

Page: 503

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. – [ Mr S Iswaran ].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.