NON-CITIZEN SPOUSES LIVING IN SINGAPORE (Policy)

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Home Affairs what the policy of his Ministry is on applications from non-citizen spouses of Singapore citizens to live in Singapore with their spouses.

The Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, our immigration laws do not confer upon any foreigner the rights of entry or residence in Singapore. The husband of a Singapore citizen is not entitled to Singapore citizenship or permanent residence by virtue of his marriage to a Singapore citizen. If he desires to settle in Singapore permanently, he will have to obtain permanent residence on his own merits. It is the law and common practice in many countries of the world that a wife should follow her husband, and Singapore is no exception. When a Singapore girl marries a foreigner, she cannot expect the State to grant her husband the right of residence in this country. The husband will have to qualify for residence on his own merits based on the economic contribution he can make to Singapore.

Our policy on the granting of permanent residence to foreign wives of Singapore citizens is less stringent. However, every case will have to be considered on its own merits. Among the factors to be considered is that we have to ensure that the husband is not only able to support his wife and children but they will not later become a burden to the State if they are granted permanent residence. This is important because we must discourage our citizens who can barely support their families to marry foreign wives, therefore increasing the strain on our public housing, medical and other social services. We must not forget that a person granted permanent residence will be able to form a family nucleus together with one other Singapore citizen for public housing. The grant of permanent residence to each applicant will mean that the queue for HDB flats will be longer.

Singapore has no natural resources and our population density is 3,907 persons per square kilometre which puts us fourth in the world in terms of population density after Monaco, Gibraltar and Hong Kong. We cannot afford to grant permanent residence as liberally as other countries with larger land areas and more resources. In our circumstances, the first responsibility of the Government is to safeguard the rights and interests of the vast majority of Singaporeans.

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has differentiated between non-citizen husbands of Singapore citizens and non-citizen wives of Singapore citizens. If I may take the position of the non-citizen wife. The Minister has said that each case depends on its merits. That begs the question, Mr Speaker, Sir. I want to know what the policy is. The Minister has stated that we have to make sure that the husband is able to maintain the wife. That must equally apply whether or not the wife is a Singapore citizen. The husband is under a duty to maintain the wife under the Women's Charter.

The Minister has spoken of permanent residence being granted to non-citizen wives. Is he aware that the wives of Singapore citizens have been forcibly ordered to leave this country and kept out because they have contracted marriage with Singapore citizens?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I must ask for clarification from the Member for Anson. Can he clarify his point that wives of Singapore citizens have been forcibly ejected from Singapore because they have contracted marriage? Is he referring to those wives who, before they were married, were work permit holders?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, they were, I think, work permit holders. But the fact remains that they were living in Singapore, and -

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, he has given me the clarification.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, if you are asking a supplementary question, carry on.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, is it the policy of the Ministry to forcibly deport a foreign wife who was previously here on a work permit but who entered into a marriage with a Singapore citizen?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me answer the question. In fact, the question has a bearing on the work permit policy which, of course, is administered by the Ministry of Labour. But never let it be said by the Member for Anson that we duck the question on a technicality. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no question of a forcible or violent overthrow of spouses of Singapore citizens.

Let us put this question of work permit holders in the correct perspective. Work permit holders are foreigners who have been given work permits. For what reason? To work in Singapore. They are given a work permit in Singapore, precisely because we need them for that limited purpose. They are given a work permit on several conditions which may be imposed by the Commissioner for Employment. These conditions are made known to them. They are aware of the conditions. They accept the conditions and a work permit is then given to them.

When the Commissioner for Employment has given a work permit, the Immigration Department, which is within the purview of my Ministry, then gives them the necessary visit pass which is coterminous with the duration of the work permit and which is valid for so long as the work permit is valid.

In situations where any of the conditions is breached, and it may not only be a condition relating to the question of marriage, the Commissioner for Employment may terminate the work permit, again I repeat, for breaching any of the conditions which the work permit holder is fully aware of. When that condition is breached and the work permit is cancelled then, as far as the Immigration Department is concerned, the basis on which the Immigration visit pass was given, that is, the work permit, no longer exists and the person is not per- mitted to stay in Singapore. The Member for Anson should know that the legal basis for this is provided for in the Immigration Regulations concerning work permits. Paragraph 9 (A) (3) reads:

'Where a Work Permit issued to the holder of a Work Permit Pass is cancelled by the Commissioner for Employment, the Work Permit Pass shall be deemed to have been cancelled and the holder of such Pass shall not remain in Singapore thereafter. . . .

I would have thought that this should be familiar to practising lawyers although I can forgive non-lawyers for not being aware of it. It is a simple question of allowing a category of persons to come into Singapore on certain conditions of which they are fully cognizant. They have breached certain conditions and the Work Permit Office cancels the work permit pass and, therefore, the entire basis of their stay in Singapore is negated. The Immigration Department has to follow the law which requires the work permit pass to be deemed cancelled.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister please answer my question?

Mr Speaker: I thought he did answer your question.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, he talks about work permit conditions. My question is this. I want a straight answer to a straight question, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is it the policy of the Ministry to deport the wife of a Singapore citizen albeit when she has broken the condition of her work permit under which she was allowed to live in Singapore? May I have an answer to that question?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, we are having a repetition of what happened yesterday, although I thought the Member for Anson would be a little bit wiser from yesterday's experience. I have given an answer as clearly as possible. The policy is spelt out in the law and the law requires that, when a work permit is cancelled for breach of any condition, the Immigration visit pass is deemed cancelled. Therefore, whether or not that person has any relationship with whosoever in Singapore, that person will be asked to leave.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chua Sian Chin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am raising a point of order. The Member for Anson's line of questioning is such that it would appear that he is championing non-citizens, foreigners. He has forgotten that he has been voted into this House by citizens. But the point of order is this. Will he declare his direct personal pecuniary interest in his line of questioning? In other words, has he got cases of this nature representing non-Singapore citizens regarding application for permanent residence? How many cases has he got, acting as a lawyer outside this House or in the name of his firm "J.B. Jeyaretnam and Company"? Can he declare his interest?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am getting used to all these innuendoes and insinuations which, I am glad to say, are completely ignored by the people outside.

But be that as it may, may I first put my supplementary question to the Minister who answered the question because he has not answered my question? Does he, first of all, agree that this makes nonsense of the Government's policy about the sacredness of family life and of the husband and wife being allowed to live together?

Secondly, to answer the Minister's question, I have, as a Member of Parliament, raised about six matters concerning non-citizens who have married Singapore citizens and who have been asked to leave the country.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I take the Member for Anson's answer to mean that he has no pecuniary interest and that he has raised this matter only as an MP but not as a lawyer or in the name of his firm.

May I refresh his memory that he has done so in his capacity as a lawyer and not as an MP? May I produce a letter from J.B. Jeyaretnam & Company in which it is stated:

'We act for the abovenamed who is a Malaysian citizen.

Our client [not a voter] has been residing in Singapore for more than 10 years. On the 17th of May 1981, our client married Mr Latib Bin Ali who is a citizen of Singapore by birth at Johore Bahru by Muslim rites. She now resides with the husband . . .

We would urge you on compassionate and humanitarian grounds to grant our client an entry permit for permanent residence in Singapore. We would stress that our client's husband is a citizen of Singapore. As such if our client were to leave Singapore it would cause a break-up in the family. . . .'

It is dated 5th February 1982. Can this letter be shown to the Member, Sir? [copy of letter handed in to Mr Speaker.]

Mr Speaker: Would you like to see this letter, Mr Jeyaretnam?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, Sir.

[Question No. 2 taken. Later - ]

Mr Speaker: Is it true that the letter was issued by your firm?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, of course, it is a letter from my firm. It was signed by my assistant. May I continue, Sir? I myself -

An hon. Member: Not aware?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I do not know what stage this matter has reached, whether there has been any payment or anything on this. Of course, there is this letter. I have raised this matter because of the appeals I have had as the MP for Anson.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson says that the letter was signed by his assistant and he has no personal knowledge of it. Is that so? I take it to mean that.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I do not remember having seen this letter at all in my office.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: And she is not your client? Mr Speaker, Sir, on this subject, I have a letter signed by Mr Jeyaretnam himself with his very big signature. [Copy of letter handed in to Mr Speaker.]

Mr Speaker: Would you like to see this letter, Mr Jeyaretnam?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, Sir.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, should I answer the supplementary question now?

Mr Speaker: Yes, please do that.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, in his supplementary question, the Member for Anson asked: does this policy not negate the Government's policy of emphasizing family life in Singapore? On the contrary, the entire immigration policy of Singapore, of which this question touches only a part, is to enhance the quality of life in Singapore, to enhance the quality of family life in Singapore. Therefore, let us always remember, as the immigration policy always stresses, that here we are trying to improve standards of living for all Singaporeans. We are emphasizing the skills of Singaporeans. We are investing a great deal on education. We have taken much effort to cut down the birth rate in Singapore. Is all this to be negated by blindly letting in persons including the illegal immigrants whom the Member for Anson championed yesterday? Are we to let in the indolent, the lazy, the malingerers into Singapore and therefore completely undermine the quality of life for all families of Singaporeans? This is the critical question, Mr Speaker. If Singapore is a land of plenty, we could afford to take a very humanitarian approach in our policy on permanent residence and citizenship. But Singapore is not a land of plenty, so we have to take a strict policy on immigration, a policy that will enhance the quality of life for the vast majority of Singaporeans. Very often, the Government is faced with the problem of making unpleasant and unpopular decisions. When faced with this task, we have to choose that option which is least unpleasant and which is intended to promote the interests of the vast majority of Singaporeans.

Mr Jeyaretnam rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, before you say anything more, may I suggest that you refer yourself to the Statutes of Singapore Cap. 49*, section 31, before you commit yourself any more on this particular subject.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All I want to say is that this second letter that was handed to me was dated 30th May 1981. It is long before I became a Member of Parliament. It is dated 30th May 1981. Of course, it is my signature. But this signature on the letter dated 5th February 1982 is my assistant's signature. It is about this that I was talking. But the letter dated 30th May 1981, of course it is my signature and I wrote that letter.

Mr Speaker: Let us go on to Question No. 3.