ARREST OF ILLEGAL INDIAN FOREIGN WORKERS (Effects of, on relationship with India)

The following question stood in the name of Mr Chiam See Tong ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the relationship between Singapore and India has deteriorated as a result of the recent arrest, conviction and sentence of certain Indian foreign workers and, if so, whether the situation will escalate for the worse.

Mr Chandra Das: Question No. 11, Sir.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, bilateral relations between Singapore and India are good. In the past few years, our bilateral relations have been strengthened based on mutual respect for each other's sovereignty and non-interference in each other's internal affairs.

Singapore has long had a problem with illegal immigrants. Given Singapore's size and scarce resources, we have no choice but to take tough measures to curb the number of illegal immigrants in Singapore. As there was no effective means to deter the increase in the number of illegal immigrants and overstayers, the Immigration Act was amended this year to provide for stronger punishment against them. The new amendment to the Immigration Act was debated in Parliament on 26th January this year. The Immigration (Amendment) Act came into effect on 31st March 1989. The law applies to all foreigners irrespective of nationality and the new penalties apply to those who enter Singapore illegally or overstay for more than 90 days.

The amended Immigration law provides for caning of illegal immigrants and overstayers. Caning is a deterrent punishment provided for in several of Singapore's laws. For example, the Misuse of Drugs Act, the Penal Code and the Vandalism Act provide caning for offences like trafficking in controlled drugs, robbery and vandalism. I have asked the Clerk to distribute a table (Cols. 227 - 230) showing the details of some of the offences which attract caning. table - EXAMPLES OF MANDATORY MINIMUM CANING PROVISIONS FOUND IN OUR STATUTES (Cols. 227 - 230)

Sentencing comes under the domain of our courts and will have to be carried out by due process of law. For example, in 1987, 602 prisoners were caned, of whom 487 were Singapore nationals and 115 were non-nationals, among whom were 1 Indian, 1 Chinese and 11 Thai nationals. In 1988, 616 prisoners were caned, of whom 497 were Singapore nationals and 119 were not. 2 Taiwanese, 4 Pakistanis and

12 Thai nationals were among them. The caning of foreign nationals who violated our laws is not new.

The recent arrests, convictions and sentencing of Indian overstayers were made under the Immigration (Amendment) Act, 1989. The Singapore and the Indian authorities have worked together to resolve the issue amicably. At the request of the Indian authorities, Singapore granted the Indian High Commission in Singapore a two-week period ending 19th May to repatriate its overstayers. Even though these Indian overstayers were the responsibility of the Indian High Commission, the Singapore authorities made every effort to assist it in the repatriation exercise. All the overstayers who reported to the Indian High Commission were provided free accommodation at Jalan Bahar Camp. The Singapore Government provided electricity and water supplies to the camp. Indian officials have expressed appreciation for the cooperation of the Singapore authorities.

Singapore made a major concession by agreeing not to prosecute all those Indian overstayers who surrendered themselves during this exercise. However, for those who have already been charged, or already convicted, and are appealing, the law has to take its course. The Government cannot intervene in cases which are before the courts.

We are aware that some Indian officials have described caning as a "barbaric" punishment. Unfortunately, even though these "barbaric" laws have been on our books for decades, Singapore continues to be a magnet for nationals of other countries who are prepared to take great risks to get into Singapore in order to work illegally. We hope that with the recent publicity over these illegal workers, widespread knowledge of this "barbaric" punishment will deter foreign nationals from coming to Singapore to work illegally.

Some Indian officials have also expressed concern that caning would have an adverse effect on bilateral relations because in India caning is no longer meted out in their courts. We hope that it will not. It is an established principle in international relations that friendly relations between nations must be based on mutual respect of each other's laws and legal systems and non-interference in each other's internal affairs. We respect and understand that other countries have different laws, punishments and legal procedures. We expect our nationals, when abroad, to observe and respect their laws. Likewise, foreigners who come to Singapore must observe our laws, even if these are different from the laws of their home country. Caning has been a part of Singapore's criminal law since British days. Singapore citizens and other nationals, including Indian nationals, have been caned when they have breached the law. Both Singapore and India share many common interests. It will not do any good to anyone to make the system of punishment for crimes in Singapore into an issue.