CANING SENTENCE ON SOMKID KAMJAN (Impact on Singapore-Thai relations)

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) what is his assessment of the Thai Government's response to the caning sentence on Somkid Kamjan, especially its impact on Singapore-Thai relations; (b) whether it will damage our business and other interests in Thailand; and (c) what is our Government's stand on the Thai protest.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Government has received several appeals for clemency for Somkid Kamjan, a Thai worker who was arrested on 20th June 1989 and sentenced on 22nd June 1989 to three months' jail and three strokes of the cane for the offence of illegal entry.

Members are aware that the Presidents of four Thai labour unions wrote a joint letter of appeal to the NTUC on 28th June. The Chairman of the Committee on Labour in the Thai House of Representatives wrote a letter to his Singapore counterpart on 30th June. On 5th July, the Thai Deputy Foreign Minister, Mr Prapas Limpabandhu, was reported to have said that the Royal Thai Government will ask the Singapore Government to grant a second and final amnesty for illegal Thai immigrants in Singapore. On 4th July, the Thai Embassy sent a third party note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs formally requesting the Singapore Government for an amnesty for residual Thai illegal workers.

In response to these appeals from Thailand, various Singapore organizations have also appealed to the Singapore Government. On 1st July, the President of the NTUC informed the Thai unions that in view of their appeal and the close relation- ship between the two organizations, the NTUC would appeal to the Singapore Government to grant a final amnesty for Somkid Kamjan and all other illegal workers in Singapore. He has also invited his Thai trade union counterparts to come down to Singapore and together with NTUC officials, visit worksites to urge Thai illegal workers to give themselves up. On 4th July, the NTUC President submitted this appeal for a final amnesty to the Minister for Law.

The Chairman of the Singapore GPC for Defence and Foreign Affairs also issued a statement on 7th July, in response to various Thai appeals, including an appeal by the Chairman of the Committee of Labour in the Thai House of Representatives. The Chairman of the GPC for Defence and Foreign Affairs recommended that the Government give a final amnesty for all foreign illegal workers still in Singapore. His appeal has been conveyed to the Chairman of the Committee of Labour of the Thai House of Representatives by the Chairman of the GPC for Labour.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am confident that relations between Singapore and Thailand will not be damaged by the issue of Thai illegal workers. Bilateral relations between Singapore and Thailand are strong and very broad-based. It cannot be in the interest of either Thailand or Singapore to allow this issue to cast a dark cloud over our good relations.

But, as I said in this House on 29th May on the subject of Indian nationals who were convicted under our amended Immigration laws, 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. Just as we expect our nationals when abroad, to observe and respect their laws, foreigners coming to Singapore must observe our laws even if these laws are different from the laws of their own home country. Caning has been a part of Singapore's criminal law system since the British days. Singapore citizens and other nationals, including Thai nationals, have been caned when they breached the law.

In this regard, my attention has been drawn to the fact that, like the Indian Government, the Thai Government has also acknowledged the right of Singapore to enact its own laws and that the Thai Government expects Thai nationals to abide by these laws when coming to Singapore. Their Deputy Interior Minister, Mr Wattana Assavahem, was quoted by the Nation as saying that their efforts on behalf of Somkid Kamjan "do not mean the government will help every Thai" found guilty of violating Singapore immigration rules and that although the Royal Thai Government was against the caning penalty, "Singapore has the right to implement any law it deems suitable and Thai workers must keep in mind what they will get if they violate Singapore laws".

Sir, at this stage, the Singapore Government is unable to intervene in the case of Somkid as the matter is still before the courts. Mr Somkid Kamjan has filed an appeal against his sentence on 30th June.

Somkid's case is different from the case of the nine Indian nationals who were granted clemency from the punishment of caning. The nine Indian nationals were granted clemency because they had been arrested and convicted before the repatriation exercise for Indian immigration offenders held from 8th to 20th May. Had they not been arrested, they could have been included in that repatriation exercise. Somkid was, however, arrested two and a half months after the end of the repatriation exercise for Thai overstayers and illegal immigrants. He, like the others arrested after such grace period and general amnesty, cannot claim that they were ignorant of the new law.

Nevertheless, because of the close and friendly relations between Singapore and Thailand, the Government is studying the appeals made by the Royal Thai Government as well as from the various Thai organizations and their Singapore counterparts. We are considering a once and for all solution that will give all Thai and other offenders a last chance to leave without punishment. It would not be right to offer this only to Thai offenders. But, if we decide to grant such a final amnesty, then there can be no pleas for clemency after that. Therefore, a full effort must be made by all those who have made these appeals to reach out to their nationals because it will be absurd to have successive amnesties after each final amnesty.