IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Defence (Mr Lim Kim San): Mr Speaker Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second-time"

Hon. Members of this House are aware that entry into Singapore is governed by the Immigration Ordinance, 1959, its regulations and orders made thereunder. These immigration laws have proved to be extremely effective legal instruments in attaining our main objective of controlling the lawful entry of persons from outside Singapore and ensuring, among other things, that those who arrive for the purpose of employment do not prejudice the employment opportunities of citizens and other lawful permanent residents of Singapore who have similar or corresponding qualifications and skills. The laws have, however, failed to reduce or minimise illegal immigration into the Republic.

Hon. Members of this House are also aware that Singapore has a coastline which is about 79 miles long and our shores are only a short distance away from the Malaysian mainland and from the nearest of the neighbouring islands. It is a near impossible task to patrol our territorial waters all the time without incurring heavy unnecessary expenditure on the establishment of an effective and credible sea patrol system to prevent illegal immigration into Singapore. The open nature of our coastline with easy accessibility both from the neighbouring Indonesian islands and from the south of Johore makes illegal entry into Singapore an easy task. Once in Singapore, the illegal immigrants are not only harboured by local residents and citizens but are also provided with employment opportunities in contravention of prevailing immigration and other labour laws of the Republic.

Full immigration control on travel between Singapore and West Malaysia was implemented on 1st July, 1967. Despite this, however, there is at present relatively free movement between the two countries but there is no exit control to ensure that those who arrive for temporary visits of one kind or the other leave the Republic within the period of the authorised visit. Owing to the social and economic conditions prevailing in the neighbouring countries, many such visitors will want to remain in Singapore beyond the periods of their authorised stay if their presence remains undetected. In addition, therefore, to the large number of illegal immigrants who enter Singapore, there are large numbers of persons on Visit Passes who remain here unlawfully. Since 1959, the following persons have been apprehended by the Immigration, Police and Customs Departments for illegal entry or for contravention of the Immigration Ordinance or regulations made thereunder: Year Number apprehended 1959 130 1960 360 1961 116 1962 140 1963 204 1964 436 1965 128 1966 854 1967 2,640 1968 2,980 1969 2,593

The above figures give a rough idea of the size of the problem but do not reveal the true position, because there are probably thousands of others who have remained undetected.

The Immigration Department is doing all it can within the limits of its manpower and resources to remove illegal immigrants and those who contravene the immigration laws: There are obvious difficulties in removing such immigrants who have been apprehended. For instance, there are people who claim birth in Singapore but cannot produce a shred of evidence to substantiate their claim to local birth. Despite that, they refuse to return to wherever they came from. Again, there are others who have established family ties with citizens and residents of Singapore and, therefore, do not wish to be removed or be separated from their families. In the case of minor children of tender age particularly those under 15 years of age, removal is all the more difficult because they cannot be removed to another country to fend for themselves, if the whereabouts of their parents and other near and dear ones are not known.

The purpose of the Bill before the House is to strengthen the hands of the Government to combat effectively the menace of illegal immigration, and not only to deal a severe blow to traffickers and harbourers of illegal and prohibited immigrants, but also to punish those who employ such persons in contravention of the immigration laws.

Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 2 of the Bill introduces the definitions of the words "employ" and "harbour" for purposes of the Immigration Ordinance. The definitions are simple and will facilitate prosecutions for the offence of employing or, as the case may be, of harbouring an illegal or prohibited immigrant.

In order that illegal immigrants may be severely dealt with, clause 3 provides for a heavier sentence, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both such imprisonment and fine. The Government hopes that the heavier penalties will have a deterrent effect and thereby reduce or minimise illegal immigration into Singapore. The sentence under the existing law is half the penalties provided for under the Bill before this House.

The expression "paragraph (a) of" appearing in subsection (2) of section 15 of the Immigration Ordinance is redundant as there is no paragraph (a) in section 60 of the said Ordinance. Clause 4 of the Bill, therefore, introduces an amendment to delete the above expression which is unnecessary.

Sir, the explanatory statement to the Bill states that the principal amendments are to subsection (1) of section 56 of the Immigration Ordinance where two new offences are created, namely, trafficking in prohibited or illegal immigrants and employing any such immigrants. In addition, opportunity has been taken to amend paragraph (a) of that subsection by inserting the words "enters unlawfully or" and amending the existing paragraph (d) of the same subsection dealing with harbouring of an illegal or prohibited immigrant. These amendments, which are proposed in clause 5 of the Bill, and the introduction of the definitions proposed in clause 2 are, as has been stated above, to facilitate prosecutions under these provisions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 5 of the Bill also proposes heavier penalties for offences under paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) of subsection (1) of section 56 of the Ordinance. The offences under the paragraphs mentioned relate to entering unlawfully or attempting unlawfully to enter Singapore, or abetting any person to enter Singapore in contravention of the immigration laws, or harbouring an illegal or a prohibited immigrant. The penalties which have been proposed are twice as heavy as those provided for under the existing provisions and should go a long way in helping the Government to curb illegal immigration into Singapore.

As regards the new offence of employing an illegal or prohibited immigrant, the penalty will be similar to that for the offence of unlawful entry or abetment of such an offence or for harbouring illegal or prohibited immigrants.

For the other new offence of trafficking, however, it is proposed for the consideration of this House that the penalty imposed be imprisonment for a term of two years and a fine not exceeding $4,000. This will have a deterrent effect on traffickers,

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.10 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot agree more with the Minister for Defence that our Government should plug up the loopholes in our immigration laws. In fact, we should hold the Minister responsible for the situation we are in today where a few thousand illegal immigrants are undetectable in Singapore. As stated by him, the number of illegal entries into Singapore is increasing.

I would not have quarrelled with him on this amending Bill had he been a little far-sighted on the provision in regard to the legal immigrants and the illegal immigrants. This amending Bill does not make a clear distinction between the case of a legal immigrant who comes to Singapore on a Visit Pass and who is entitled to stay only within the authorised period, and the case of an illegal immigrant. What I find fault with this Bill is that the two types of immigrants come under the same provision and the one with the Visit Pass who overstays receives the same penalty as the illegal immigrant. In other words, if the legal immigrant has overstayed the authorised period through an oversight, he could be punished by a fine of $4,000 or two years' gaol or even both. The illegal immigrant who is unfortunate to be arrested is also subject to the same penalty. Hence there is no distinction between the two categories of immigrants.

Sir, if this Bill is passed without some form of differentiation between the two categories, I am sure it will attract a lot of criticism from the public. I may have to defend the Minister for Defence for his short-sightedness! Of course. I will not join with the public in criticising the Minister because he is my colleague. But the public will say that the Minister cannot differentiate between the legal and the illegal immigrants. I, therefore, sincerely urge the Minister to look into my suggestion and make some form of differentiation between these two categories.

Prof. Wong Lin Ken: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to seek clarification on the precise status of people from West Malaysia who were in Singapore prior to the imposition of full immigration control. I believe the number of such people is very large and I am not very clear how they will be affected by the proposed changes.

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this is the first time I have the pleasure of expressing my thanks to the Member for Bras Basah for fully supporting what I have proposed. He says that there is no distinction in the Bill between those who overstay in Singapore and those who have come in illegally. In the eyes of the law, I think a person who has stayed here longer than he is permitted to is also an illegal immigrant. But whether he should be treated more leniently than the man who comes in illegally, I think there is enough leeway in the law to allow the court to exercise its discretion. I have full confidence in the ability of our Judges to differentiate between the severity of the cases mentioned.

Mr Ho See Beng: The trouble is that the Bill does not make it clear.

Mr Lim Kim San: Sir, I would be much obliged if the Member for Bras Basah can suggest any legal phrase to make it clear. We have had the Attorney-General's Chambers and law specialists in my Ministry working on this Bill. I think they would be very grateful indeed if the Member could further improve and make a distinction between someone who overstays and someone who has come in illegally.

Mr Ho See Beng: You should have approached the Attorney-General's Chambers!

Mr Lim Kim San: For the information of Members, before a Bill is placed before this House, it is always vetted by the Attorney-General's Chambers.

To come to the Member for Alexandra, he wants a definition of the status of people from West Malaysia who were here before the imposition of full immigration control. I think the general rule applies. If a person from West Malaysia is staying here and holds a Singapore identity card, he is allowed to stay here unless he leaves Singapore, in which case he would be travelling on some sort of a document. If he is a Malaysian citizen, he will be travelling with a Malaysian passport. Therefore, once he is out of Singapore, he will be treated in the same way as other visitors from outside Singapore. He will be given a visitor's pass which limits the period he can stay in Singapore. I hope that clarifies the Member's question.

Prof. Wong Lin Ken: I think the Minister has not explained all the possible positions of people from West Malaysia. I do meet such people every Friday in the meet-the-people sessions. There are people who claim that they came here prior to the introduction of immigration controls but they carry Malaysian identity cards. I wonder what kind of status we will give them under the proposed changes. It would seem that if there is no clear-cut status given to them, we cannot be certain whether they are legal or illegal immigrants. We do not know what kind of status to give to them.

Mr Lim Kim San: Sir, it is very difficult to find out when they actually came here. It could be that they came here after the immigration laws were passed and they just threw away their visit passes. But I can see a problem here. I do not think we would be very severe with these cases until we go thoroughly into the case of every individual.

Prof. Wong Lin Ken: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this is a subject which has great difficulties. Perhaps more thought should be given to it.

Mr Lim Kim San: Sir, more thought will be given to it. I think that answers all the points raised by Members on the Bill.

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 Lim Kim San].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

5.22 p.m.

Clause 1 -

The Chairman: Members will note that,

In page 1, line 4, to leave out "1969" and insert "1970".

That will be done.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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