IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Dr Lee Boon Yang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Immigration Act was last amended in 1984 when this House enhanced the penalties for various offences such as the offences of overstaying, illegal entry and the employing of immigration offenders. The present penalty for overstaying in excess of three months, illegal entry and employing immigration offenders is a mandatory imprisonment term of between six months and two years and a fine of up to $6,000.

These stiffer penalties and economic slowdown between 1985 and 1986 have helped to contain the overstayer problem. In 1984, a record high of 5,665 overstayers were arrested. After the 1984 amendment, the number arrested fell to 4,559 in 1985 and 2,916 in 1986. However, with economic recovery, the problem has resurfaced. In 1987, 3,532 overstayers were arrested and in 1988, the number arrested was 4,120, an increase of 16.6%.

Besides this sharp increase, a large number of arrested overstayers have been found to have overstayed more than three months. In 1986, 1,318 of the 2,916 overstayers arrested (or 45.2%) were found with passes that had lapsed more than three months. In 1987, 1,840 of the 3,532 arrested overstayers (or 52.1%) belonged to this category. In 1988, 1,850 of those arrested (or 44.9%) were such offenders. In other words, nearly one in two overstayers have overstayed more than three months.

Long term overstayers not only blatantly break our immigration and employment laws but they also pose a threat to our society. By circumventing work permit rules to work here illegally, overstayers are not subject to stringent checks carried out by the Work Permit Department to weed out known criminals. They are also not subjected to medical clearance imposed by the Work Permit Department. These overstayers threaten our law and order and may carry infectious diseases. Left undetected for too long, they may attempt to sink roots here, with even more serious long-term consequences to the society.

We cannot afford to take a casual attitude towards this problem. If we do not take effective measures now, others will find it more attractive to enter or to stay illegally to work here or to seek their fortunes here. We are not against people coming to Singapore to work or even to seek their fortunes here. But they must do so lawfully.

To keep the problem within check, we are forced to devote vast amounts of resources to track down, prosecute and repatriate overstayers and illegal immi- grants. As at 6th January, 1989, there were 1,014 overstayers and illegal immigrants in our prisons. This constitutes 17% of our total prison population. As a result, scarce funds and manpower resources have to be diverted from the rehabilitation of local prisoners and drug addicts to these foreigners.

The problem of overstayers is not entirely caused by foreigners. There are Singaporean employers who contribute to this problem by willingly and knowingly employing immigration offenders. These employers are the root cause of the problem. Without employment, foreigners will not be tempted to overstay or enter illegally. It is the unscrupulous employers who create a demand which attracts the foreigners. As a result of this strong demand, trafficking syndicates have sprung up to supply illegal workers. With good prospects for further economic growth, we can foresee that the demand will not abate on its own accord. If more drastic measures are not taken now, we are going to be swamped by an increasing number of illegal immigrants and overstayers.

Though the Immigration Act now provides for mandatory imprisonment of those who employ immigration offenders, the Immigration Department has found it extremely difficult to secure convictions against unscrupulous employers. This is not due to lack of trying on the part of the Immigration Department. These employers avoid formalizing an employer-employee relationship with immigration offenders. They resort to using immigration offenders' services on a short term basis and by not keeping employment records. The multiple sub-contracting system practised by our contractors at many worksites also makes it difficult for Immigration Department to identify the employers who actually hire the illegal workers. In addition, employers, when confronted, often deny knowledge of the immigration status of their workers. They simply claim ignorance of their workers' immigration offence. Currently, this knowledge factor is a vital ingredient that has to be proved by the prosecution. In many instances it is difficult to prove that an employer knowingly employed an overstayer or immigration offender. Other workers who are potential prosecution witnesses will not implicate or testify against the employers as they face the risk of losing their jobs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is therefore necessary to amend the Immigration Act to strike at the root cause of the problem of overstayers and illegal immigrants. The Bill introduces a presumption clause against the occupier of any premises, other than residential premises, so that where any immigration offender is found at those premises and is in possession of tools or implements or engaged in any activity which would suggest that the immigration offender is working there, the occupier of those premises shall be presumed to have knowingly employed him. The Bill also makes it an offence for the owner, tenant and occupier of any premises to knowingly allow his premises to be used for the employment of immigration offenders.

These provisions will prevent the irresponsible and unscrupulous employers from escaping prosecution. The onus will now be on the occupiers and the employers. They have to ensure that only legitimate workers are allowed entry to workplaces under their control. Employers who institute proper measures to check the immigration status of their employees need not fear the changes to the Immigration Act. Those who choose to flout our immigration laws will not get away easily.

Finally, Sir, the Bill seeks to introduce mandatory caning of at least three strokes and at least three months' imprisonment for those who overstay 90 days or more or enter Singapore illegally. Our experience has shown that the present jail sentence of at least six months is not a sufficient deterrent. There is also no point in wasting our valuable resources, both financial and manpower, by jailing and feeding immigration offenders for long periods of time. With the introduction of caning, the mandatory imprisonment for these overstayers and illegal immigrants will be reduced to three months and, at the same time, the penalty will become a more effective deterrent.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is obvious that we have a very complex and serious problem on our hands. Why is this so? Firstly, the picture given is that of an organized crime. I will expand on this later. Secondly, we are dealing with foreign nationals. The people who come here and who are the illegal immigrant workers are nationals of other countries, will be subject now to our new law. Thirdly, bona fide Singaporean businessmen, who knowingly or unknowingly employ these illegal immigrants, become a party to this crime. Why do I say "unknowingly"? This is because of the problem of forged work permits. Some of these, I understand from the Ministry, are so well done that it would be difficult to differentiate the counterfeit from the real. Fourthly, the punishment to be meted out to the illegal overstayer may be regarded by some as too much, namely, that of mandatory caning.

Sir, in my mind, there is no doubt that this is organized crime. The illegal immigrant has to be matched to an employer. He has to be provided with food and shelter during the period he is here. He is even given forged work permits. For the illegal immigrant who enters Singapore illegally, the picture is even more grave. There must be connections with overseas counterparts to supply the labour, to engage them, to transport them to Singapore and match these persons to Singapore employers. It is based on this scenario of an organized crime that we in our GPC support the stern measures to be taken. The Straits Times report of 25th January goes to illustrate this problem. There is the Thai agent. Then there are cars which have been specially modified so that the illegal immigrants can hide inside. All this shows that this is organized crime. In my mind, there is no question to it.

But, Sir, who is the greatest villain of this all? My GPC members and others in this House, I am sure, will expand on this. How has the situation reached such alarming proportions? What is, as the Minister correctly mentioned, the root cause? Other members of my GPC will comment on this.

Sir, we urge the Ministry of Home Affairs to distinguish between the profiles of the illegal immigrant. Firstly, there is the illegal overstayer. He comes here on a valid work permit but he overstays. Secondly, there is I believe the illegal overstayer who may be a repeat offender and, thirdly, the illegal immigrant who sneaks into Singapore without any travel documents and then receives maybe forged work permits. The punishment in each case should be commensurate with the crime, ie, the illegal immigrant who came into Singapore without valid travel papers, in my mind, should be treated most severely. The reason is obvious. Because the person who has successfully entered Singapore without any travel papers is part of a syndicate and he may also bring along with him drugs or even firearms and explosives.

Sir, I would like to seek clarification from the Senior Minister of State regarding clause (2) of the Bill. Firstly, in a factory scenario, who will be responsible? The departmental head, the personnel manager, the factory manager, or the Chief Executive of the organization? In a construction site scenario, the problem becomes even more complicated with owner, main contractor, sub-contractors, and sub-sub-sub-contractors engaging workers. For example, if the Ministry of Health builds a hospital and an illegal immigrant is found on the site, ultimately who is responsible? Will it be my good friend, the Minister for Health? I raise this not in jest, but in all seriousness because it is a matter of concern to people who are in the construction and the development industry.

Sir, the punishments to be meted out will be severe. I would like the Senior Minister of State to consider the following: First, whether he would allow a grace period, for example two weeks, for those illegal immigrants already here to surrender themselves to the authorities. I am sure that we will have no pleasure in caning them. Caning is a severe matter. I understand that it takes about a week for the wound to heal. A doctor has to be on standby when caning is in progress. The fact that this legislation will be effective is shown by the Straits Times report, again of January 25th, of three Thai overstayers who were trying to flee from Singapore. Let their respective foreign missions here be responsible for repatriating them. They can then spread the word back home regarding our new laws. I know that I stand to be accused of being soft-hearted or taking the soft line, or maybe even the populist line, for saying this. But I say this with conviction and on humanitarian grounds because these people are here now, and now we are enacting laws which will affect them.

Second, will the Minister consider printing onto work permits, all work permit forms and work permits issued from now on, a cautionary note akin to that of drug offenders, to warn them of the consequences of overstaying?

Third, ask our foreign missions in the countries where these people come from to publicize the new law.

Fourth, meet the employers and other interest groups to help them and advise them. Let us bear in mind that they may be bona vide employers with genuine problems of getting labourers.

Sir, for my GPC this has been an agonizing Bill. And I am sure for the Senior Minister of State himself, it also is one. Our initial reaction was that mandatory caning was too severe a punishment for someone who comes to Singapore to earn a living. We search hard to find an alternative. To increase fines - they have no money to pay; increase jail terms - it has no effect. It is a well-known fact that our jails are much better than theirs. In addition to that, working in our jails they also earn money. What then is the answer? We could find, honestly, no answer or alternative proposal. On the other hand, the picture of organized crime drives a chill down our spines. If they can do this with labour, what about other forms of illegal or organized crime? For example, prostitution, gambling, and maybe even new forms of secret society activities will appear. What effect will this have on the public safety of our nation? It cannot be but a negative effect.

Sir, based on these facts - that the problem of illegal immigrants is closely akin or is actually organized crime and is on the increase - we support this Bill.

Dr Ho Tat Kin (Toa Payoh GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will just elaborate on a few points brought up by my GPC Chairman.

Sir, the presence of illegal immigrant workers is actually due to the strong demand created by employers, particularly the irresponsible employers who are willing to take on anyone so long as the workers are willing to work for long hours and low salaries. But the presence of this cheap labour in Singapore will make it difficult for our own unskilled Singaporeans to earn a decent living. These illegal immigrants also bring us social and security problems. Illegal workers before they are caught may knowingly or unknowingly break our rules and regulations. They may not be sensitive to our multi-racial and multi-religious society.

The Senior Minister of State has reminded us of the health problems. But I thought it is worthwhile repeating them. The regular work permit holders are subject to medical examinations and only those whose health conditions are good are admitted. But illegal immigrants are not medically screened and therefore they may bring along diseases which could be dangerous and infectious, such as Aids or others.

Sir, currently the country is spending near $10 million to imprison illegal immigrants, and this will increase if the problem is not solved. It is therefore in the interest of our people that illegal immigrants be curbed. I therefore support this Bill. But I feel our citizens should also support the Government policy and assist by informing the relevant authorities of illegal immigrants and those who offer them shelter.

Sir, while I agree that we need stronger deterrence for those intending to enter the country illegally, I am concerned with the need to cane the offender, especially when the offender was the first time. I feel that if the offender needs to be caned, then he should be caned only for subsequent offences. While caning may serve as a very strong deterrent to those who intend to enter Singapore illegally, so long as there is demand for this, the smuggling syndi- cates will try to bring in the illegal immigrants. As my GPC Chairman has said, it is organized crime. So there is therefore a very urgent need to stop the demand itself. Currently, those caught and convicted of harbouring or using illegal immigrant workers get a jail sentence and a fine. But I would like to suggest, in addition, they should also be made to pay for the cost of keeping the illegal immigrants caught, pay for the cost of keeping them in prison, and also for the cost of sending them home.

Sir, finally, what about the punishment for those involved in the human smuggling syndicates which brought in the illegal immigrants? I would like to find out from the Senior Minister of State how this group of people would be punished when they are caught and convicted.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, I object very strongly to the penalty of caning, mandatory caning, that is, in the Bill. Dr Arthur Beng has already very clearly indicated that caning is a very severe punishment. It takes more than a week - I understand between one week and two weeks for a person who has been caned - to recover. And why should he be caned, for what? Just because he is a worker? After all, he works to earn money by the sweat of his brow. He does not go and rob, he does not go and steal. The illegl immigrants are doing jobs which are lowpaid with long hours, and jobs which not very many Singaporeans are doing. Therefore, they are doing a good service in many ways to Singapore. In the circumstances, we should not cane them. Caning, Sir, is a very severe punishment as I have said and Dr Ho has also said the same.

There are also possible reasons why they happen to be illegal immigrants. They have already been touched on and therefore I will not go into that. For example, forged documents. Some have paid a lot of money for them. They have been tricked, and they are victims. In fact, they need our help. They should not be victims for the cane, for the punishment that we are to inflict on them. They should not be singled out for punishment.

Caning was introduced into Singapore in the 1960s. All other Commonwealth countries had abolished caning. But our PAP Government introduced that. And why? Because they introduced caning in the Vandalism Act in order to punish political opponents. At that time, some of you may not know, many of our activists used to paint slogans on the roads, on the walls, on posters, and merely putting up a poster would be considered vandalism. The way the PAP used to deal with such slogan painting was mandatory caning. Sir, "mandatory" does not even give a judge any option or discretion to order other forms of punishment. I believe that for any violation of our laws, a longer term imprisonment is severe enough. We should do away with such barbaric punishment like caning.

Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this amendment. But I have a few points which I would like to bring up for the Minister's attention.

Sir, first of all, we must ask ourselves a question as to why there are illegal immigrants. The impression that we have been given is that these illegal immigrants here are criminals. But if we go along with what the Senior Minister of State has said, that we must strike at the root problem, if we analyze the root problem, then we will come face to face with an issue that is actually larger than it seems. Many of these illegal immigrants are here because they are looking for a living. And many Singapore employers, especially those who are small, truly cannot find Singaporeans to work. Even yesterday in my Meet-the-People session I received standard letters from the Work Permit Department to say that, "I regret that the application has been rejected." This standard letter is very frequent. I checked with my fellow colleagues who said that they too also received such letters. This means that there is a real need for workers. If the Work Permit Department or the Ministry of Labour is willing to tackle this situation and allow the proper procedure to be effected by giving work permits, I think this illegal immigrant issue will not be an issue today. My point is, Mr Speaker, we are not tackling and solving the basic issue. I feel that work permits can be freely given. When we give work permits, we can actually monitor the workers better than the situation now. If work permits have probably been given, then I think the punishment levied on the employers will be very effective. Financial punishment will be very effective on the employers and to check such illegal immigrants.

Sir, I say this with very serious intention. A lot of businessmen in Singapore are suffering because of policies that we have announced or implemented in isolation. It is a fact that a lot of foreign companies have set up shop here. It is also a fact that they have soaked up many hundreds and thousands of Singaporean workers and thereby a lot of local businessmen find it very difficult to get local Singaporeans to work. For example, it is very difficult to get Singaporeans to be mechanics, panel beaters or to work in garment factories and so on. It is a very serious issue. Because if this law comes into effect and I have no doubt that we can effectively eradicate these illegal immigrants, then the question that we must ask is: how are these businessmen going to survive? There is work, but no workers.

This is an issue that I cannot answer. The First Deputy Prime Minister's revealed that all policies and decisions are made by the Cabinet and I believe then that the Cabinet owes us a duty to relook at this issue of work permits.

Sir, I turn to the section on punishment. Personally, I think the punishment for illegal immigrants is too harsh. We must always remember that when we deal with such people, sometimes we make the mistake of thinking that these people have the same mentality as we have. Do not forget that many of these illegal immigrants are simple folks, living in the countryside, who may have not seen the city-lights but were told that if you go to the city, you can earn money and you do not have to till the ground and labour until the sun goes down and you still cannot get a penny's worth of labour. So they come here with simple-minded intentions. And when they come here, they find themselves being arrested. The sad thing is that some of them do not even know why they were arrested. They say, "Look, I paid somebody. Somebody tells me that you go to this place, everything will be arranged for you. You just go there and work and you just send your money back to feed your family." I think we have got to take that into consideration when we talk about caning these people. They are not criminals. They are honest workers.

I am also told that caning is not allowed on women. You cannot cane those below 17 years old and those who are above 50 years old. Even if you have mandatory caning, I am just wondering whether it will be really effective to check those illegal immigrants that we do not want. Mr Speaker, Sir, as it is impossible to spell out the diverse circumstances in which these simple folks are in, I would suggest that caning should be made discretionary by the judges, and not mandatory.

I want to refer to the proposed amendment to section 57 which says:

'(8) Where a person who has acted in contravention of section 6, 15 or 36 or the regulations is found at any premises or place, other than premises used solely for residential purposes, and is in possession of any tools or implements or engaged in any activity which may give rise to the inference that he is doing any work ....' This is very vague. I think we are putting too much power on the people who will be policing this so that if you see somebody with any tools or implements, which can be anything, these are the only evidence he needs to make an arrest. Secondly, I think that we got to relook at this because it can abused by one disgruntled employer against another. So this is something which I hope the Minister will relook at this. 2.52 pm

Dr Aline K. Wong (Tampines GRC): Sir, I wish to join the Member for Paya Lebar in urging the Minister to consider making it possible for judges to consider the caning of illegal immigrants, not on a mandatory basis but on a discretionary basis. I find it very difficult to accept this mandatory provision. While I realize that the problem of illegal workers is getting out of hand and that something must be done to provide more teeth to our immigration officials to enforce the law more effectively, I wish to reiterate two points.

First, as the Senior Minister of State himself has said, the root of the problem lies with the employers who employ these illegal workers. And because there is a demand, there is also this supply leading to the formation and organization of syndicates. So the crux of the problem lies with the organized nature of this trade and therefore the severity of the law, I think, should be directed at the people who are the employers and also the traffickers in the trade who profit from this traffic.

The second point I want to bring up is that many of these illegal workers come from among the poor families, the poor rural urban migrants from our neighbouring countries. Many of them would have sold everything they have, bought a ticket or enter into heavy debt in order to come to work here. These people are actually the victims of the trade. And now they come here to make a living and when they are caught, of course, they are jailed because they have breached the law. But to cane them in such a severe manner, I am afraid it will cause us to stand very poorly in the eyes of the community of nations. I think Singaporeans would not really benefit in terms of international standing with this kind of a law. I find it also very difficult for us as a country, when we claim we want to be cultured, when we want to go onto a higher plane of social development, that we should be doing this to foreign workers. No doubt they breach the law but I really find that mandatory caning a bit too much. And I would urge the Minister to reconsider this and perhaps make it possible for the judges to look at it in a discretionary manner.

Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam): Mr Speaker, Sir, the way I could rationalize with regard to the issue on caning is that the Government has actually taken the incremental step of increasing the punishment and penalty and did not do it in 1984. I presume that the Government could have taken the very drastic step in 1984 but decided to review the situation and found the situation rather difficult to manage and have to resort to the severe penalty that has been proposed.

I think the concern is really how and when we should enforce this. I share the sentiments of my Chairman of the GPC that possibly one of the administrative means is to provide for a grace period so that as much notice as possible is given, so that people are aware of this impending action and that we will not be found to be willy-nilly in enforcing such a severe punishment.

Dr Lee (NCMP) has mentioned that caning was introduced for vandalism; I think we have done it for locals. We have seen the results of the very little vandalism that is taking place in our public places and I think we have shown that it is not just caning that is instituted for locals but that it is instituted as the need arises. My concern really is: will this mandatory caning be a precedent that is to be set for subsequent legislation? Do we see this particular avenue taken for future offences committed by our citizens?

I share the sentiments that there ought to be differentiation in the kind of illegal immigrants, whether they are people who enter the country illegally or they are overstayers. I think there is no differentiation with regard to these two categories of people. And I believe that it is not incorrect that some of the victims could jolly well be people who have been misled into coming to Singapore to work. But I think one of the approaches that we can minimize the problem of illegal immigrants is really to help in the supply of foreign workers, to legitimize in areas where there is need to provide the permits for such people. Because I am aware that employers do take a lot of risks in hiring illegal immigrants, especially when they are caught when industrial accidents take place, whether in the construction sites or the shipyards. You cannot run away with having an illegal worker in your hands if he so happens to be one. So they are taking a lot of risks and we have to ask ourselves why such risks are being taken by them. And I think there ought to be coordination with the Ministry of Labour in this regard to try to minimize the problem.

Finally, Sir, I think the area of foreign or international relations is an area that we ought to concern ourselves with because we are dealing with foreign citizens who are classified as illegal immigrants. Either they enter Singapore illegally or they overstay. And I think we would have to ensure that a fair and reasonable presentation is given to the foreign authorities with regard to this particular Bill that we are discussing about.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to make some comments on this Bill.

I am against illegal immigrants. They impose on our way of life, on our social and security system. Worse still, they may bring in diseases because they are not screened. Therefore, they should be punished. It is obvious that the Ministry must be fed up or must have given up all the soft options, including sending them back after a jail sentence, to come up with such a strong measure. Moreover, I learned that it costs $10 million a year to upkeep these illegal immigrants currently serving jail sentences here. Departmental interest therefore demands that the Government should do something before the situation becomes worse.

It was reported in the press - in fact, it was also told to Members of this House - that the number of illegal immigrants entering Singapore has risen by 16.6% from 3,500-odd to about 4,120, all within the space of one year. And the number of those arrested for smuggling these illegal immigrants has also increased from six in 1987 to 18 in 1988. To stamp out this problem the Ministry has decided what it considers the most effective method, and that is, caning of illegal immigrants. This is a logical administrative departmental decision, but not all administrative decisions are good decisions.

I want to ask the Minister whether his department has taken into account wider national implications. What are these implications? Our country is a big tourist attraction. I believe 4 million tourists come to Singapore or have entered Singapore last year, and I believe that just one case of caning an overstayer who has not committed any crime will do us no good. We are making caning a mandatory punishment for unlawfully remaining in Singapore for a period exceeding 90 days.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you never know how people can overstay, especially our Malaysian relatives who sometimes stay here for long periods and forget to renew their visas or social visit passes. You must let us know the extent of this problem on this group of foreigners. My concern is on a government-to-government level, there is understanding of each other's security and social problems. But people-to- people level, I am not so sure because this involves a punishment that has emotional connotations, unlike drug traffickers and drug pedlars. I think the nature of the offence is different from drugs.

Singaporeans travel a lot, in particular the Asean area. I feel that such an action could lead to misunderstanding and ill-will. Therefore, if you look at this issue from a national viewpoint, the Minister should re-think and not make it mandatory to cane these illegal immigrants who probably in their eagerness to seek a better job here are unaware of the consequences of their actions, of our laws, when they take the risk to come here. I think it is the middle men, the agents, the employers of these illegal immigrants, the recalcitrant illegal immigrants and those who commit crimes who should be caned, not just any illegal immigrant or overstayer. I therefore suggest that we should allow the courts to decide who should be caned and who should not rather than making it mandatory. For example, I am for caning the agents, as I have said, who bring in these people to Singapore. They are like drug pushers. They are the guilty ones.

Mr Davinder Singh (Toa Payoh GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, as I understand it, corporal punishment is usually imposed on offences which involve violence, brutality or direct damage. It is a very serious form of punishment and extending it to immigration cases may well open the flood gates. If this is the first time that caning is being imposed for non-violent, non-damage-inflicting offences, then I respectfully urge the Senior Minister of State to reconsider the position to determine whether it is appropriate just because it is an effective deterrent.

It is true that unwelcome visitors impose a financial and social burden. But there should be one standard applicable both to Singaporeans and to foreigners. We should not treat foreigners any different from Singaporeans in the types of punishment that are meted out for offences which do not involve violence or an imminent threat to violence or damage. We certainly would not appreciate the difference in treatment if the roles were reversed. I respectfully urge the Senior Minister of State to consider, as alternatives to mandatory caning, first, as the Members have earlier suggested, either discretionary caning, ie, discretion to be vested in the courts or, second, caning only for second and subsequent offenders; the reason being that there is a real risk that first-time offenders, either illegal entrants or first-time overstayers for a period exceeding 90 days, may not be as culpable as the persons who are actually responsible, ie, the perpetrators, the masterminds. This ought to be taken into account.

Sir, I would recommend that the first alternative, ie, the vesting of discretion in the courts be adopted. I have heard the Senior Minister of State in his opening statement in regard to the burden that is being imposed by these illegal immigrants, in particular the time that they spend in prison, the amount of money that they spend in upkeeping them when they are there. But, Sir, mandatory caning will not encourage offenders to surrender themselves or to plead guilty for they will have nothing to lose. If they have an option and if they know that they are going to face the cane, no matter what happens if they are found guilty, whether it is a first or a second offence, they will choose to claim trial and in the normal course of events it will take many months before the trial comes up for hearing. For two reasons. One is that the court schedule is such that trial dates are not available as early as can be obtained. The second reason is that counsel can, if they want, postpone or adjourn the hearing dates on the basis that they are taking instructions, on the basis that they are not otherwise prepared to go on for trial. In the meantime and pending trial, these offenders will have to be detained. So what we have is a situation whether the detention continues for an extended period even more than the original six months, thereby increasing the social burden. The other option, of course, is discretionary caning. An offender knowing that if he gives himself up and pleads guilty, these would constitute mitigatory factors which can be put before the court to persuade the court that caning may not be the appropriate punishment, especially if it is a first offence. In the circumstances, I would urge the Senior Minister of State to consider the vesting of this discretion in the courts at least for a trial period and to monitor the results. If the number of offences increase or at least do not subside, then maybe mandatory caning may then be justified.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I am really heartened to hear all the Backbenchers arguing so passionately against caning of illegal immigrants or overstayers.

Sir, yesterday I argued for Chia Thye Poh to be released. He was imprisoned for 22 years and nobody from the Backbench supported me other than the NCMP. I for a moment thought there was no heart amongst the Backbenchers, but today I see that I was wrong.

The arguments so far, I do not know whether it is purely out of humanitarian grounds or that we might look bad in the eyes of other countries or, I suspect, behind our minds, we all are in fact children of immigrants. It would appear that history has completed its full cycle, we are all settled here and immigration is going to be difficult from now on, or at least for those who want to seek work here and are unable to get work permits.

Sir, I know that this is a difficult problem but Members have already argued that this is not the root problem. The root problem is really an acute shortage of workers in Singapore. I think the Government has to solve that and the immigration problem would be solved. But in any event this is a problem at the moment and the Government knows that a proven deterrent is caning. It has proven for other crimes and I am sure it will be effective for this particular offence of illegal immigration.

But, Sir, I think all the points brought up by Backbenchers are very good and I really support them. We are a civilized nation and if we cane people who come here, not to commit a crime but to earn a living, I think they cannot be put on par with other more serious offences.

So, Sir, I would also urge the Government to reconsider mandatory caning and instead substitute perhaps a lighter one, discretion given to our judges or perhaps second timers. I think that would certainly be a more fair way of treating these people who, as has been pointed out, really do not know what they are coming in for. If they are caned, many of them, I would say, would be innocent victims.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Cheng San GRC): Thank you, Sir, for the opportunity to speak on this. The points I wish to bring up actually have been brought up by earlier Members but I feel that this is one issue that goes so much against the common sense of decency that one really has to speak up against it.

Sir, I sympathize and I agree that the Immigration Department and the Singapore Government have a problem of illegal workers here, whether illegal immigrants or overstayers. But, Sir, is the barbaric act of mandatory caning the right punishment for workers, albeit illegal? How many of us here can really say that none of our forebears came to Singapore because of the need to find employment, because circumstances in the countries from where they were from, forced them to seek their fortune here. And, if during that time had the colonial government then imposed a similar punishment, how many of us would be here then?

Sir, I am aware of the problem having been in the Home Affairs GPC during the last term, but I believe whatever the difficulties the Immigration Department may face, mandatory caning of illegal immigrants and overstayers is not the solution. Sometimes certain problems do not have a final solution and I think we must just simply cope up with whatever best we can do.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Cairnhill): Sir, as I have recently filed a Question for Oral Answer to the Minister for Labour on illegal foreign workers and as most of the points raised have been answered by the Senior Minister of State, I would like to withdraw that Oral Question.

I would like to take this opportunity to make my comments. Firstly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I share the sentiments expressed by many speakers, especially the sentiments of the Member for Paya Lebar, and that is (a) the problem of illegal foreign workers shows very acutely that there is a very serious labour shortage problem here in Singapore, and (b) this labour shortage problem is faced by many employers, especially the local employers. As mentioned by the Member for Paya Lebar, and I am sure, as experienced by many of the MPs here at our meet-the-people sessions, we often have local employers coming to us with work permits rejected - work permits for mechanics, for skilled workers, carpenters and so on.

I would like the Senior Minister of State to give, if possible, of all the illegal workers that were caught by the Ministry of Labour so far, a breakdown of the number of such illegal foreign workers? When they were caught, how many of them were working for foreign employers and how many of them were working for local employers. I do not have the figures, but I am sure if the Senior Minister of State has the figures, he will find that many of them have been working for local employers. I would therefore seriously ask the Senior Minister of State to study this problem and, if there is indeed a big problem faced by local employers in the employment of workers, especially if there is a bias in Government policy in the employment of foreign workers by local employers, can the Senior Minister of State seriously consider reviewing this policy.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Immigration (Amendment) Bill.

Those who have illegally over-stayed in Singapore over 90 days should be dealt with more severely so that this will prevent foreign illegal workers from committing more crimes, disturbing the peace and order of our society and creating social problems. On the question of legal foreign workers and illegal immigrants, if we amend the Immigration Act, we can prevent illegal workers from overstaying more than 90 days in our country and at the same time we will prevent legal foreign workers becoming illegal workers. Therefore I support this Bill.

I remember when I went to the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre, I used to see a big hole being cut at the wire fencing there. After the hole was mended, it happened again. I suspect this has something to do with illegal immigrants.

The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Mah Bow Tan): Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to respond to one of the comments that was made by the Member for Paya Lebar as well as other Members of this House, and that is, the suggestion that the root cause of the problem of illegal immigrants is the shortage of workers in Singapore. The words used were "there is work but there are no workers." However, may I take this opportunity to point out that this is not a debate on the foreign workers' problem arising from a shortage of workers. This matter has been debated in this House already and my Minister last week in this House reiterated the Government's stand on the question of foreign workers. It is perfectly clear that if we were to use the foreign workers as a solution to our problem on shortage of workers,then I am afraid there will be many, many other problems that are going to arise.

First of all, there is the question of wages. I do not intend to go into all the arguments again but the problem is that if we allow an unceasing flow of foreign workers into Singapore our wages are going to be held down permanently and in fact the reason why there are so many foreign workers in Singapore is that we have high wages here. The foreign workers levy is another reason why we have had this problem of illegal immigrants. It is not merely a question of the supply of foreign workers. It is also because we have had to raise the foreign workers levy and I suspect that not a few of the illegal immigrants or the contractors or the employers of illegal immigrants do so because they wish to escape the foreign workers levy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I also point out that if we were to have the solution as proposed, whereby the Ministry of Labour were to allow all foreign workers into Singapore on request, whether it is for local or whether it is for foreign, companies there really is not any difference in consequences. When we allow foreign workers into Singapore, one of the first things they are going to do is to depress the wages in Singapore and I do not think that is in our interest.

Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong: Sir, I am a bit confused by the Minister of State's reply. Can I ask him whether there is really a shortage of Singapore workers in Singapore? He has not answered that question, Sir.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was responding to the Member's point that the root cause of the illegal immigrant problem in Singapore is that there is a shortage of workers and therefore the solution is to relax the controls to allow foreign workers into Singapore. I was trying to explain and reiterate the point that this is not in our interest and because we cannot allow an unceasing flow of foreign workers into Singapore, therefore, that is not a solution which is tenable.

The Minister for Labour (Mr Lee Yock Suan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to join this debate because I felt that this question of worker shortage has already been answered by me in answer to an Oral Question recently and I felt that it is better to debate it thoroughly during the Budget debate. I understand many Members have questions and strong views on this and I would welcome a debate on it during the Budget session.

However, for today, I just wish to clarify a few points. Firstly, if Members have been following the news reports of the recent arrests of illegal workers, they will find that most of these workers are working in the construction sector, shipyard sector, metal-working sector and so on. These are sectors that are allowed access to foreign workers. My Ministry has been liberally giving work permits to these sectors. In fact, for example, for the shipyard sector, there is no limit of 50%, now reduced to 40%, in terms of dependency on foreign workers. In other words, they are allowed to recruit almost as many foreign workers as they wish and yet these firms have been found with illegal foreign workers. We must ask ourselves why they are doing so. Is it because they want to evade the levy? Is it because they have previously been caught with illegal foreign workers and have been blacklisted? What is the reason? We must not be confused by all these arguments about labour shortage. It is true there is a labour shortage, basically because of our small population and rapid growth rate. We have to live within the constraints of our labour force because it is untenable just to open our doors wide and let all the foreign workers come in and to allow as many foreign workers to come in as the employers would like to have.

The other point I want to clarify is that these sectors which have been found with illegal workers are actually local companies. It is not true that my Ministry favours MNCs against local firms. We are in favour of companies and employers that can help to upgrade our economy. Shipyards, construction firms, metal-working firms, hotels - these are all local employers. We do not allow certain small employers to have foreign workers basically because they are domestic-market-oriented. They do not have to face the rigours of international competition and we apply this policy equally to all the employers. We hope that they will adjust, raise their wages, find other means to live with our labour problem, because the labour shortage will not go away.

Another point I want to clarify is that this Bill is aimed at illegal immigrants. It is not aimed at all illegal foreign workers or even employers of illegal foreign workers who have proper immigration papers. For example, there are some Malaysians here who are on social visit passes. They are allowed to stay here for 60 days out of 90 days. If they are found to be working illegally they could be punished under the Regulation of Employment Act which provides different penalties from this Immigration Act. We are basically aiming at those illegal immigrants who are found without proper immigration papers and working illegally. If we do not tackle this problem the danger is that many of them may eventually want to stay here, for example, from Sri Lanka, from India, and they do not want to go back to their countries. There are large numbers of such people from poor countries who want to come here and disappear into our population. So there is no choice but for the Government to take certain actions against these people.

As for the question of employment of skilled workers, mechanics, carpenters and so on, my Ministry does allow employers to employ these people on a case-by-case basis. We arrange for them to be tested by VITB, for example, and where they qualify we may even allow them to have three-year work permits. So our policy has to be a flexible one, recognizing the constraints of our labour force.

The Minister for Trade and Industry (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, having listened to half a dozen Backbenchers and the Leader of the Opposition, I think we should see this question in perspective. Do we have a shortage of workers? Yes, of course. When will we stop having a shortage of workers? When Singaporeans are as cheap as Filipinos. There are 2(r) million of us, 1� million working and earning, at the bottom, $500-$700 a month. Malaysian workers in Malaysia earn half that, maybe $300 a month, just across the Causeway, you do not have to go very far. If you are in the villages, you earn less than that. Indonesians earn maybe $100 a month, probably $70-80. Filipinos, if you are lucky, you get $50 a month. How can there not be a labour shortage? When will Filipinos, Indonesians, Malaysians, Thais, Bangladeshis, so many of them lose interest in coming to Singapore to work, illegally if need be? Because working here you can feed yourself, your family, and earn more in one year here than you can in a decade at home. The answer is, they will lose interest only when so many of them are here that a Singapore worker is paid the same as a worker in the Philippines. Then the Member for Paya Lebar's problem will be solved and we would not have to debate this issue.

All this "I too am an immigrant" is mush - they sound like American Presidential candidates. Of course, our forefathers were immigrants. The country needed them, it was legal, so they came. The question now is: Is anybody proposing to open the doors wide and let in any number of immigrants, unskilled, fit, unfit, educated, uneducated, on the grounds that we should feel a brotherhood with mankind? Because that is what you are arguing - we should feel sorry for them, they are hard up, therefore let them come and, if they are caught, please do not punish them. Why not in that case abolish the penalties and let them in, rather than just have half-hearted penalties? An act is either a crime or it is not a crime. If it is a crime, it must be punished, and the punishment must be effective and be a deterrent. If it is not a crime, we should encourage people to do it, and maybe even pay people to do it. I give credit to Mr Chiam for one thing though - he conceded what even some of the other Backbenchers did not, which is, that caning will work. That is realistic. Of course, it will work. What are the options? It is a crime, he is an illegal immigrant. Hundreds come in; at times, thousands. Our jails were literally overflowing. You have a choice. You can let them in and close a blind eye, which some countries do, and after a certain number of years you declare an amnesty, and then they all become citizens. Canada does this regularly. You read about their experience. The more amnesties they have, the more illegal immigrants come in, because they know for sure they will never get caned, they will just get citizenship in good time. I have not heard anybody suggest that.

The second option is to jail them. Some of the illegal immigrants would love it. Because the Ministry of Home Affairs has told us - I am not in-charge, but I understand this is so - illegal immigrants have come in, torn up their passports, destroyed them, and surrendered themselves, eagerly waiting to go into jail, so as to be clothed and fed and looked after in comfort. And it was necessary to make life so miserable for them that, finally, they wrote to their families back in South Asia, some place, to come and bail them out. Otherwise, they were quite happy to live the rest of their lives being stateless, unemployed, but in clover. So you want to jail them?

Therefore, cane them. Not anybody, not everyone who overstayed, not somebody who forgot to renew his visa, but after 90 days (3 months). That is a very select group. You are here for 90 days and you tell me that you did not know this was the law of the land, and you thought you were entitled to be here? It is a bit hard to believe, isn't it? And as for not knowing that this is the law of the land, if we make it so, everybody will know it. And after the first caning, we need not even broadcast it.

Everybody knows that if you bring in more than a certain amount of drugs, you will get hanged. Nobody makes out a bleeding heart case for drug pushers. Every work permit holder knows that if you come here on a work permit, you do not live with or marry a Singaporean without permission. It is written down before you come. And this too will be the law of the land. If Members think it helpful, the same way as we tell all aeroplane passengers before they come - please don't smuggle drugs, you will get hanged - you can tell them before they arrive, you have to do it to boat passengers too - if you get caught being an illegal immigrant in Singapore, you will get caned. I am sure if we do this, we will only need to cane a few, but the problem will be solved.

Mr Speaker: Mr Tan, do you want to make a clarification? I will allow you to make one last clarification.

Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to refer to the statement made by the Minister. Sir, we are talking about the problem of shortage of workers. The problem here is that the Singapore local businessmen cannot get Singaporean workers, and they also cannot get work permits. That is the main problem. It is not that they resort to illegal immigrants. It is that they truly cannot get Singapore workers.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Mr Tan has misunderstood me or did not hear me clearly. I said that many of these illegal immigrants who were caught were caught in shipyards etc, which are given work permits liberally. So please be clear about this point.

Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong: But, Sir, this Bill is going to be across-the-board. There will come a time when these people will also employ illegal workers if they cannot find workers in Singapore. So this Bill is across-the-board. It is not just geared towards the shipbuilders and the construction workers.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to thank the Members who have spoken up in support of the Bill, despite some of the reservations which they have made. I would like to address these comments and reservations individually.

I must particularly thank the Chairman of the GPC for Home Affairs and Law for his Committee's support, despite what he called "an agonizing Bill". Sir, the Chairman for the GPC for Home Affairs and Law, Dr Arthur Beng, suggested that we should consider a two weeks' grace period for those who are already here to surrender to the authorities, so that they will not be caught under the new enhanced penalty. Let me point out that in the first two weeks of this year, 1989, there were no less than six reports in the Straits Times alone on the problem of immigration offenders and illegal workers: 5th January - "Authorities watch 6 pick-up points for illegal foreign workers"; 7th January - "Man jailed 3 years for bringing in illegal workers"; 8th January - "Ministry steps up checks to nab illegal immigrants"; 11th January - "No permits: $40,600 fine for 9 bosses"; 14th January - "Tougher penalties planned to stem tide of illegal workers". Caning was mentioned as a possible deterrent. On the same day, Sir, there was another article suggesting that the Government should make bosses of illegal workers pay heavily for their offences. Newspapers in the other languages also carried reports on this matter.

This Bill was introduced for the First Reading on 16th January, and on 17th January amendments to the Immigration Act were reported in the papers, including the new provision for mandatory caning. Sir, these reports are clear warning to immigration offenders and their employers that new and tougher measures are about to be implemented to deal with them. Ample warning of the new caning penalty has been given. In fact, all those immigration offenders who are now here in Singapore, will be wise to promptly surrender themselves to be dealt with according to current laws. Overstayers who choose to stay on illegally must face the new punishment, including caning. Those who enter Singapore illegally, once the new provisions are in place, will be charged under the amended Immigration Act and they will face caning, if convicted.

Sir, the question of giving a grace period, hence, is not pertinent in this case because we have so much publicity on the matter already. However, let me assure the Chairman of the GPC for Home Affairs and Law that when charges are contemplated in specific cases, the background will be carefully considered. Each case will be considered on its own merit.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek a clarification. Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. I would like to reiterate my point that all these press releases have been so effective, now they are trying to run out. That is why I quoted in the newspaper report of 25th January. They are trying to get out. Why waste our resources trying to catch those who are getting out? Let them surrender. Make it an additional point or another plus factor. Do not fill up our jails with these people, send them back! They will help us solve our problem. We do not even have to keep them for the six months under the present regulations. Let them go back home and spread the message for us - "You will be caned!" I did support the Bill, Sir.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is exactly what I say. For those who are already here - overstaying, breaking our law - my advice to them is surrender now to the authority, you will be dealt with under the current law. And the current law says that for those who overstay for less than 90 days, in fact they will not be sent to jail, a fine can be imposed. Jail sentence is not mandatory and they can be dealt with appropriately. That is already in the existing law. It is only if they overstay 90 days that under the current law it is mandatory jailing of six months up to a term of maximum two years.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Sir, now, about these people who would be sent to jail. If they were to be sent to jail, they may not want to own up. That is my point.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, if they surrender themselves now, they will be dealt with under the current provisions. Let me draw the Member's attention to section 15(3)(a) of the Immigration Act which is not being amended, Sir. It says:

'Any person who without reasonable cause contravenes this section [unlawful entry or overstaying] shall be guilty of an offence and -

(a) in the case where he remains unlawfully for a period not exceeding 90 days shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both;' That means the court will have the discretion. There is no mandatory imprisonment here. It may well be that should they all turn up in droves to surrender, the court will deal with it expeditiously by way of a fine and then send them off. That is up to the discretion of the court to decide.

The Member for Fengshan, Dr Arthur Beng, also asked who will be responsible. He spoke about a complicated situation, particularly in the worksite and construction site. Who actually will be involved? Sir, the specific person to be charged in each case will depend on the available evidence. For example, if evidence of payment exists, the person who makes the payment will be charged. Depending on what is uncovered during the investigation in each case, the sub-contractor, the site contractor or the main contractor of the building site may be charged.

The Member suggested that we consider printing a caution on future work permits about the enhanced penalty of caning for overstaying or illegal working. We will consider this. Of course, that would have to be referred to the Minister for Labour for his consideration whether it can be included in the work permit or not.

The Member also asked for more publicity to employers and interested organizations. Yes, certainly my Ministry will keep all employers informed of these amendments. There is sufficient press publicity which should be ample to keep people informed of the changes that are being made.

Dr Ho Tat Kin has made a point, which I think other Members have also made, that first-time offenders should not be caned. Sir, I will come to this question of caning which has been taken up by several Members separately. I will first deal with the aspect that first-time offenders should not be caned. I think we have to be careful here. It is a persuasive argument. First-time offender, why cane him? But it is thoroughly fallacious. Why so? Because here we are trying to put in place a penalty which will be a sufficient deterrent for future immigration offenders. We are dealing with a situation where these people come from countries with vast populations, 40 times or more than our population here in Singapore. So if you say that every first-time offender is given opportunity to get off lightly, you will never solve your problem. There will always be first-time offenders. When will you reach the end of the queue to start hitting on the second-time offenders? New people can always come in. Traffickers can always bring in people who have never been here before and there are plenty of them. So I think that approach will not work. If we want an effective deterrence, it has to be applied at the first offence.

He also suggested that the employer should be asked to pay for the cost of maintaining arrested overstayers and illegal immigrants in the prison. That suggestion can be considered. We can look into it.

Sir, next I come to the NCMP, Dr Lee Siew-Choh, who objected strongly to mandatory caning. In fact, what he described about the activities of the vandals in the early 60s precisely proves the point that caning is necessary if you want to put a stop to a social problem. I am sure Dr Lee can recall that prior to 1966, Singapore was plagued with vandalism.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Explanation, Sir. It was not a social problem. It was a political problem.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, that is a matter of opinion. I think it is a social problem to have people defacing public property, damaging public property, even stealing insulating oil from electrical substations. The main thing is that we look for a remedy that is effective. Caning is effective. Let us apply it to deter the would-be offenders.

He makes a very impassionate plea for all these innocent people who are trapped in this illegal immigration offence which my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry, has amply disposed of. Let me just point out that they are not innocent offenders of our immigration law. If, as Dr Lee has said, they paid a great deal of money to acquire forged documents, how is it that they are prepared to pay this sum of money without knowing that they are doing something that is wrong? Surely they must be aware of the fact that the documents they are obtaining are obtained illegally. Otherwise, it would not cost such vast sums of money.

Sir, next I would turn to the Member for Paya Lebar, Mr Philip Tan, who has spoken on the problem of employers who are faced with a labour shortage. My colleagues have dealt with the labour policy aspect. Let me take Members through the law enforcement aspect. As I said in my Second Reading speech, the number of illegal workers in Singapore is indeed related to the demand for their service. The more the demand from employers, the more will come. The problem is not just that of the foreigners alone. Singaporeans are contributing to the growing numbers of illegal workers here by attracting them and by giving them employment, and some by giving them shelter. However, the shortage of labour is no justification for deliberately breaking our labour laws and immigration laws and for encouraging and enticing foreigners to blatantly violate our laws. Such violations cannot be tolerated.

Sir, let me give the Member two examples from another aspect of maintaining public order and safety. As Members of Parliament, we are all aware - we have heard this complaint before - of people who urinate in the lifts in public housing estates. Sir, the absence of a nearby toilet is no justification for a person to use an HDB lift as a toilet. This problem of urinating in the lifts in our public housing estates cannot be condoned. It must be eradicated. How can we achieve this objective if every offender gets off by pleading that nature's call was beyond his or her control and that the lift was the nearest solution?

The second example, Sir, in order to get a driving licence, every learner driver has to invest some money, some time and effort to acquire sufficient driving skills to pass the test. If the person does not have the money or lack the skills, he will not pass the test and he will not be issued with a driving licence. Such a person cannot disregard the law and proceed to drive a car without a licence just because he needs the convenience of a car. Otherwise, how can the Police ensure the safety of all roadusers?

Sir, these examples show that people must not disregard laws that are made for good reasons to serve the common good. Anyone who disregards our laws must be dealt with accordingly. Just as it is no excuse to plead that nature's call was urgent or there was a pressing need to drive, employers cannot resort to illegal workers because their applications for foreign workers were rejected. We cannot allow employers to make a mockery of our immigration and employment laws for their own interests.

As regards the labour policy, may I suggest that the Members take it up with the Minister for Labour separately. He is the most appropriate person for you to direct your eloquent pleas and cogent appeals.

Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just interject for a little while? I think the Minister, when he used the two examples, those offenders had choices. In this case, the Singapore businessman has no choice. If the Minister can give them Singapore workers, I can submit all the applications of these employers to him and let him supply them with Singapore workers. They have no choice. So I am pleading for them that we must solve the basic problem, ie, the work permit. Whereas in his two examples, they had a choice. They had the choice of going to the toilet.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it would be an over-simplification just to say that they had no choice. All Singaporean employers have a choice, as the Minister for Labour has said. In fact, some of those who have been caught employing illegal workers are in sectors which have been given work permits liberally.

The Member for Paya Lebar also asked whether caning will be effective since caning is not allowed for females, those under the age of 17 and those above the age of 50. I understand that most of the illegal immigrants who are caught on the worksites are able-bodied young men within the age limit where the law can apply.

He also sought reassurance on clause 5. In his view, it is vague. The presumptive power that is contained in clause 5 may be abused. Sir, the presumption introduced by clause 5 is not a departure from established practice. There are similar provisions against occupiers of any premises which are involved in illegal activities and these presumptions can be found in many other legislations. Let me give you some examples: the Arms Offences Act, the Betting Act and the Common Gaming Houses Act.

Let me just quickly refer to two of these Acts for the specific examples. In the Arms Offences Act (Cap. 14), section 9 states:

'Where any arm is found in or on any premises, the occupier of such premises shall be deemed to be in possession of such arm unless he proves that some other person was in possession thereof, or that he had no knowledge or reasonable means of knowing that such arm was in or on such premises and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such arm being kept in or on such premises.' So a presumption is already in existence in this particular law.

Let me refer him to the Common Gaming Houses Act (Cap. 49), section 8(3) which states:

'Any person who is the tenant, lessee, occupier or person in charge of any public place which is used for gaming shall, unless the person proves that he has no knowledge that the premises are used for gaming, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $20,000 and not more than $200,000 and shall also be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.'

Sir, the presumption is not an unreasonable imposition of guilt on occupiers. First, the arrested foreigner must be an immigration offender. In other words, an overstayer or someone who has come into Singapore illegally. Secondly, the immigration offender must be caught on the premises with possession of tools or implements or engaged in some activities which can be construed as working. Only when these conditions are met will the occupier be presumed to have employed a foreigner.

Sir, in effect, the amendment places a duty on all occupiers and employers to check the passports of prospective foreign employees. It is the duty of all employers to ensure that foreign employees are in possession of valid work permits and that no unauthorized persons should gain access to their premises.

Here, Sir, I would like to address a point brought up by some Members that some employers may have been misled by forged documents. In such cases, then it is a defence which the employer can use. It is an argument in the favour of the employer to say that he has been misled and I am sure if the immigration investigators have this fact and if it can be ascertained that the documents were such good forgery as to be able to mislead an average person, then the employer will not be charged.

Sir, some Members have also pointed out that the traffickers who bring in all these illegal workers, illegal immigrants are just as much to be blamed, and that they should also be dealt with severely. In this amendment we have introduced some new provisions, but it does not mean that we have overlooked the offences committed by the traffickers. There are provisions in the Immigration Act as of now which deals with the offence of trafficking. Let me point out to Members section 57 (1)(c) spells out the offence of illegally conveying aliens into Singapore. The penalties are imprisonment for a term not less than two years and not more than five years and a fine not exceeding $10,000 and caning. So under the current Act caning is already provided for traffickers. Therefore, traffickers now are being dealt with more severely than illegal immigrants, overstayers and employers. Even before this amendment, the punishment for traffickers may be more severe. Let me give Members an example. The Straits Times reported on 14th January that the boatman convicted of smuggling illegal immigrants into Singapore was sentenced to four years jail and 18 strokes of the cane. His sampan and motor were confiscated. Sir, I believe that existing penalties are sufficient to deal with traffickers.

Sir, the hon. Mr Loh Meng See suggested that the move towards mandatory caning could be just an incremental measure being undertaken by the Govern- ment. He is correct in his assumption because two years ago we had already considered introducing mandatory caning to deal with the problem. But we have decided to watch how the situation develops. Is it going to improve on its own with the existing penalties or do we have to take sterner measures to deter these illegal immigrants? The figures I have given Members in my Second Reading speech prove that the trend is upward, and if nothing is done it will get worse. Hence we have taken this incremental step, as he has called it.

Sir, I now come to the point that has been taken up by most of the Members, that is, the additional penalty of mandatory caning with a minimum of three strokes. Some Members have asked: why make it mandatory, why not leave it to the discretion of the judges? Others like the Member for Ayer Rajah have asked us to consider what will happen to all the thousands of Singaporeans who travel abroad. I believe he is concerned that Singaporeans travelling abroad may have to face the wrath of somebody who has been caned by the Singapore Government. Well, we should not allow ourselves to be held to ransom. If foreigners choose to come to Singapore and blatantly break our laws, should we take a soft approach to them, pack them off nicely and say, "Please, don't do it again and leave our Singaporeans whom you encounter in your home country in peace." No, that cannot be, Sir. Anyone who comes to Singapore and chooses to break our laws must face the penalties. This is the law of the land. Likewise, any Singaporean who goes abroad, if he chooses to break the laws of the countries that he is visiting, he will have to face those penalties imposed by the law in that country.

Sir, let me come back to this question of mandatory caning. I must, first of all, point out that there are many precedents in our law to provide for a mandatory minimum caning. For instance, we touched on that earlier on, the offence of vandalism. The penalty for acts of vandalism is a minimum of three strokes. Offences under the Arms Offences Act, Misuse of Drugs Act, and certain sections of the Penal Code are also punished with mandatory minimum caning.

I would like to remind Members that not all immigrant offenders are subjected to caning under this amendment. Earlier on, in response to a point raised by the Member for Fengshan, I have pointed out that in section 15(3)(a) of the Immigration Act, for those who overstay less than 90 days they face a lighter punishment.

So what are the alternatives to deal with long-term overstayers who deliberately break our laws, come in illegally and those who overstayed more than 90 days? Please, be quite clear on this. We are not talking about the occasional overstayers who overstayed for a period of a few days or a few weeks, relatives from Malaysia who happened to have overlooked renewing their social visit pass for one or two weeks. These are not the people we are concerned with. We are concerned with people who come in, hidden in the bottom of a sampan, in the boot of cars, or by some other yet undetected means to deliberately break our laws. So what are the alternatives that can be considered to deal with this problem? Increase the prison sentence beyond the current two-year maximum provided by the Immigration Act? That is one alternative. However, if we do so, we will end up with more immigration offenders in our jails. As I have mentioned earlier, they already make up 17% of our prison population. Dr Tan has pointed out that it cost $10 million, $9.4 million to be more precise, to maintain this group of prisoners. So increasing the prison term will only place an intolerable strain on our prison system. We can increase the fine. But immigration offenders are unlikely to pay the fines. They are people who are poor, who come here trying to make some money; they are not about to part with those hard-earned dollars. Heavier fines, if imposed, will then end up having to be commuted to a longer imprisonment term with the undesirable consequences which we are all aware of. As my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry has mentioned, some of the immigration offenders whom we have locked up in our prisons have been known to find our prisons comfortable and the food that they are getting much better than the food they were used to get at home. So as a result imprisonment is not at all an effective deterrent. So the point here is that we are facing a serious problem, a problem which cannot be dealt with by the usual approach. We have to deliver a very clear signal to would-be immigration offenders that we will not tolerate such violations. For this reason a short prison term of three months and caning with three strokes is considered the minimum needed to have an effective deterrent effect.

Earlier on the Non-Constituency MP, Dr Lee, brought up acts of vandalism. Prior to 1966 vandalism was very much on the rise causing a great deal of public money to be spent on cleaning up after the vandals and repairing the damage caused by them. In 1966 mandatory caning with three strokes for persons convicted under the Vandalism Act was introduced. There was a significant reduction in acts of vandalism after caning was introduced. Dr Lee testified to that earlier. As a result, Sir, Singaporeans today are able to enjoy a clean garden city environment despite having 86% of the population living in congested high-rise public housing estates. This would not have been possible if we had not taken a tough stand against vandals.

Sir, a minimum three-stroke penalty means that would-be illegal workers would be left in no doubt at all as to the consequences of violating our immigration laws. It will be very clear to all that a certain minimum punishment awaits them. And it is for this reason that we believe that a minimum penalty is necessary. We want to deliver a clear signal: Don't come here to try your luck with breaking our laws and don't come here to try your luck with our courts hoping that you could get off with a light penalty. This is the very minimum penalty that you can expect if you decide to come here to break our laws. Sir, I believe that this is the only way to deter such people and to avoid the social consequences of having a large number of illegal aliens in our midst.

Sir, I believe I have dealt with most of the reservations and comments raised by Members.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise on one last clarification. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his conscientious and detailed replies. We have received many clarifications on practically all points. As a Member of the Backbench ---

Mr Speaker: Dr Beng, can you make your clarification, please.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Sir, my clarification is this. Will the Senior Minister of State in his reply to me give an undertaking that this Bill will not be gazetted earlier than two weeks after the passing by this House?

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, I give no such undertaking. The gazetting of the Bill and the bringing into operation of the powers contained in this Amendment will be dealt with under the normal procedures. The Bill will have to be sent to the Presidential Council for Minority Rights and it would then have to go to the President for the President's Assent before it can be gazetted as a law. That takes some time and it is the usual time.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Lee Boon Yang].

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