IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 1.30 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The reasons for this Bill have been explained in a Government press statement which was issued on the day the Bill was introduced. I can therefore be brief. Furthermore, the problem of illegal immigrants and overstayers has been fully debated in recent months.

Members will recall that in January this year, this House amended the Immigration Act to provide for mandatory caning for illegal immigrants and for those who overstayed more than 90 days. Also, because of the inherent difficulty in prosecuting employers, we also introduced a presumption clause. That new law came into operation on 31st March 1989.

But before it came into operation, the effectiveness of that law was already largely demonstrated when more than 10,000 overstayers and illegal immigrants surrendered and were repatriated. In spite of these enhanced penalties and the wide publicity given to them, two more amnesties were given to flush out another 2,000 immigration offenders who were also repatriated.

Although we introduced these caning provisions for illegal immigrants and overstayers and introduced the presumption clause, we will still have some foreigners coming to work illegally so long as there are unscrupulous employers who are prepared to take the risk in employing them. And indeed, Sir, there are such unscrupulous employers.

Consider, for instance, the following fact. When the final amnesty expired on 8th August 1989, there were as many as 393 illegal immigrants and overstayers who surrendered to their respective embassies for repatriation. They were from 10 different nationalities. This is despite the wide publicity given to the stiffer penalties and despite the earlier amnesties. What does this tell us? It tells us that there is still a hardcore group of employers who will continue to recruit and employ such immigration offenders.

Fines and jail terms are clearly not adequate deterrents for some of these more unscrupulous employers. Introducing caning for these employers should remove any incentive for this group to hire illegal immigrants and overstayers. It will effectively discourage more illegal immigrants from entering Singapore to seek work. Also, traffickers who are really mercenaries of human misery should also be dealt with severely, and that is also an objective of this amendment.

It is for these reasons, Sir, that the Government has decided to amend the Immigration Act to provide for:

(a) mandatory caning for employers who employ more than 5 illegal workers and who had actual knowledge that they were illegal immigrants or overstayers; and

(b) mandatory caning for traffickers of prohibited immigrants where previously it was optional.

Sir, these amendments will also remove the impression that by caning the illegal immigrants and overstayers but not their employers, the Government is treating the two guilty parties to the same offence inequitably. As for the traffickers of prohibited immigrants who are wilfully exploiting the situation, they too have to be dealt with severely.

Members will know that the Act already provides for a rebuttable presumption against the employer, ie, if illegal immigrants or overstayers are found with tools or engaged in activity from which employment may be inferred, the occupier of the premises is presumed to have knowingly employed them, unless he can prove otherwise. However, this presumption will not apply for the purposes of this amendment before the House.

Just as not all immigration offenders are subject to the penalty of caning, not all employers employing illegal workers will be caned. This latest amendment has been drafted carefully so that the caning applies only in the case of what I would describe as an aggravated offence. Thus, only employers who employ more than 5 illegal workers at the same time and who are proved to have had actual knowledge that these workers were illegal immigrants or overstayers, will be subject to caning. There are therefore adequate safeguards to ensure that not only no innocent employers will be caned, but also that only those who blatantly flout the law and are guilty of this aggravated offence will be caned.

Sir, we must ensure that the problem of illegal immigrants and overstayers is effectively curtailed and does not resurface. A strong signal must go out to all sides - the potential foreign offender, the trafficker and the unscrupulous employer - that the penalties are severe and the law will be enforced strictly.

Sir, finally, I have also taken note that quite a number of MPs have called for such enhanced penalty for the employers and I hope that the Bill will receive the support of Members.

Question proposed.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in considering this Bill, we must take into account three factors. This Bill must not be considered in isolation. Firstly, the amendment of the Immigration Act in January this year. Secondly, the severity of any punishment must reflect the severity of the crime. Thirdly, the socio-economic milieu in which we are in.

Sir, in January in this House, when we were discussing the problem of how to contain the problem of illegal immigrants, I said that the GPC supported the Bill on two grounds. One facet of the problem was that of organized trafficking of illegal immigrants which undermines our economic policy and also poses a threat to our national security. Secondly, we could offer no alternative to stamping out the problem as both hefty fines and jail sentences were no effective deterrents. However, Sir, when we consider the Singaporean employer, do the same arguments stand? Let us examine this. Firstly, the Immigration Department have reason to believe that there are employers who are employing illegals to avoid the foreign workers' levy. Yes, for this group of people I believe that enhanced punishment is justified. As the Minister has mentioned, this is the hardcore group. Secondly, we have to ask ourselves why others are employing illegals. The answer here is the strict criteria of the Ministry of Labour regarding work permits. Except for the Shipbuilding, Construction, Manufacturing and Hotel Industry, and Foreign Maids, others are not allowed (with some exceptions). In the tight labour market situation today many of the small and medium-sized industries are still unable to get enough local labour. There is a shortage of labour in kindergartens and Day Care Centres. There is a shortage of office and clerical staff, not to mention production workers. The HDB shop operator, be it a hawker, restaurant, barber or hairdresser, is desperate for labour.

Here, Sir, I would like to highlight an anomaly in restaurants. If a restaurant is sited in an HDB estate, that restaurant is not allowed to employ foreign workers. But if that restaurant is big enough or rich enough to be sited in a hotel, that restaurant can have foreign workers.

We know that the Minister is a careful and cautious man. The Prime Minister has reminded us so recently. On this occasion I urge him to continue to be careful and cautious, but please reconsider carefully and quickly, so that flexibility can be introduced soon to alleviate the situation albeit even if this be temporary. None of us in this House would want the Singaporean worker to be disadvantaged, and the foreign workers levy is one way to ensure this . My learned colleagues from the Unions may have other suggestions to offer. I am hopeful that the Minister for Labour will be sympathetic. In 1987, as Chairman of Communications and Information, I brought up to him the problems of shortage of workers in the stevedoring industry. He was quick to respond. I am glad, and I hope that he will likewise look into the present problems that I have brought up this morning.

Sir, small operators may well want to employ Singaporeans, if they are available. But they are not. If we have more flexibility in the work permit policy, perhaps the situation can be alleviated. If we look at it from the point of view of the small or medium- sized operator, he may well be asking himself: If I do not have workers, will I go bust? Then perhaps we can understand why they resort to employing illegal immigrants. I am not saying for one moment that it is right to break the law. All I am saying is: let us ask ourselves why they break the law. They are, so to speak, placed between the devil and the deep blue sea. Sir, for some it is a matter of survival and may mean losing a life-time investment.

Sir, in summary, the socio-economic fact of today is that there are just not enough workers to go around, and that for the more unpleasant jobs, Singaporeans will not take it as they have alternatives in a full-employment situation. It is a fact that there are certain jobs that just do not appeal to the Singaporean. These jobs require special attention from the Ministry of Labour. I am sure that my colleagues involved in the running of town councils will testify to the problem of getting workers for the provision of cleaning services. The Minister for National Development has this morning just mentioned that there is a shortage of workers for the Central Expressway.

Finally, Sir, we have to address the unpleasant issue of punishment, viz. mandatory caning for the employer. When I spoke on the Bill in January, I called it an agonizing Bill. This Bill is equally agonizing. From a sampling of views received, some have said that they are simply against caning for non-violent offences. Others have said that if the Singaporean wants to stand tall and upright in the international community, having adopted caning for illegal overstayers, we must now show that we are willing to apply the same standards to our own citizens. That is, show the international community that we do not practise double standards. I believe that this is a rational stand. Some may say that two wrongs do not make a right. My argument is that under present constraints, the first amendment in January, unpleasant as it is, uncomfortable as we may be with it, was not wrong, is not wrong, especially when two amnesties have been given. There are still others who go so far as to say that both Bills are wrong and should be withdrawn. That is, no more caning in this issue. Some feel that for the Singaporean a hefty fine and a jail sentence would be deterrent enough.

Sir, as the Minister has highlighted, two important safeguards have been built into this Bill regarding caning. (1) The onus of proof is on the prosecution. The prosecution must prove actual knowledge. (2) The employer must have at the same time employed more than five persons, that is, at the same time the raid is made five illegals are found. Therefore, there can be no doubt as to the intention to break the law.

Sir, as regards the caning of traffickers, I am in full agreement, as these vultures who live on human misery deserve absolutely no compassion.

In summary, Sir, I wish to state that it is with much discomfort that I support this Bill. Those of us who have supported the earlier Bill are now in a position where we must be ready to say that all men are equal. So the maxim of law of equal punishment for the same offence of illegal immigrants must hold. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. However, in an ever-changing and rapidly changing social, political, and economic milieu of this world and our region in particular, it is my hope that the day will soon come when both Bills can be repealed. I again urge the Minister for Labour to review the work permit policy to help alleviate the problem. I will support his review, hopefully not with discomfort but with the greatest of pleasure.

Sir, my colleagues in my GPC will present their own views and perspective of this Bill as opinions are varied. 1.45 pm

Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong (Paya Lebar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, caning has always been a punishment meted out for criminals. With the passage of this amendment, employers who commit non-criminal offences will be treated together as though they have committed criminal offences. The Government and administrators have rightly boasted Singapore of many firsts in the world. Singaporeans at large are very thankful for the progress and status that we have attained. We probably will be the first in the world to punish commercial offenders with punishment meant for criminals. I personally do not think that Singaporeans will be proud of this first.

We should not draft our laws as though we are a commercial island to ourselves. Singapore is an important commercial and financial centre in the world and, as such, our laws which affect commerce and investors should take into account the foreigners who will invest in Singapore. This particular amendment will engender psychological fear in the potential investors to invest here. It will also create unnecessary psychological fear in our professionals to become entrepreneurs. The Government may contend that as long as the employers operate within the rules there is no cause for fear. But the truth of the matter is sometimes offences can be unknowingly committed on technical grounds. This one such fear will be real when such an amendment is passed. This may hinder the growth of entrepreneurship.

Consequent upon to the psychological fear, many of our professionals may decide to start their business outside Singapore. At this juncture, it is already an uphill battle to retain professionals in Singapore. I am afraid this amendment will drive more Singaporeans overseas. I sincerely call for caution. I urge the Government to redraft this amendment to exclude caning as a form of punishment. In its place we should consider heavy monetary punishments which are very effective in Singapore.

We can see from our own experience how monetary punishments have brought about the desired results. For example, fines for spitting have made Singapore a cleaner city. Traffic fines have also reduced traffic offences and fines for late submission of annual returns by companies have also been very effective. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I could go on and the list can be very long. But I think it is sufficient to drive home the message by mentioning that even the latest fine for those who did not or forget to flush after their business in the toilet has also been very effective.

I have said before that the main cause for such an amendment to become necessary lies in the strictly controlled work permits. I am very convinced that if the Government relaxes the issuance of work permits in accordance with demand, this amendment and the previous amendment of caning the illegal immigrants will no more be necessary.

At this moment, there is a demand for foreign workers as we are in the full employment situation. It is a fact that Singaporeans choose jobs where the environment is comfortable and the physical demand is relatively less. As a result, there are not enough Singaporean workers for local businessmen who are involved in the labour-intensive businesses and the working conditions are harsh. The Labour Ministry has always claimed that work permits are usually and freely given. I understand that this is only true in the construction industry, shipbuilding industry, domestic maids, manufacturing and the hotel industry.

But, Mr Deputy Speaker, there are a myriad of industries in Singapore and these industries are crying for workers but no work permits are given. I would like to emphasize this because I have actually applied on behalf of my constituents and the result has always been negative. They happen to be the smaller businessmen in Defu Estate. If you and I are employers in such industries, I wonder what we would have done.

I am often saddened by the things that I hear that many responsible administrators often advise employers in such industries to relocate to Malaysia or to any other country. Personally I think that the administrators may not fully understand the business environment. They have forgotten that such industries which are support industries are very much needed in Singapore because they are the ones that attract the multi-nationals. To relocate to other countries would increase the cost for the multi-nationals and in turn would lose our competitiveness.

At this moment, I think the administrators are basking in the economic health generated by the multi-nationals that they think that the local industries are no more important or not glamorous enough for them to channel their energies and time. I think this is wrong. In order that the economy of Singapore may thrive, we need our local industries because they are an important factor in attracting multi-nationals.

This amendment has also come about because many employers in the approved industries where work permits are freely given try to evade payment of levy on the foreign workers. Initially, the levy was introduced to check the number of foreign workers so as not to deprive our citizens of jobs. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the environment has changed and, like all other things, rules must also change. We are in a full employment situation. There is a need to review the use of levy. I would think the Labour Ministry should review this financial levy and substitute other non-monetary controls so that employers need not resort to employing illegal immigrants.

In conclusion, I want to state that I am in favour of rules or regulations which will bring about an orderly business atmosphere but I am not in favour of caning as part of the penalty.

Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it was unfortunate but it has proven to be correct and effective in providing for caning of illegal immigrants and overstayers when we amended the Immigration Act early this year. What we do in our laws is to institute penalties that are effective and serve as deterrents to potential wrongdoers.

But, Sir, the approach in dealing with the employers of illegal workers need not be the same. According to the Straits Times Report of 8th August 1989, 124 employers were convicted and fined a total of $524,650 in the first seven months of this year for employing illegal workers. It seems that no employers have been jailed so far. Until we have tried jailing some employers and see whether it has worked we need not consider caning for the employers just yet. The same graduated approach should be adopted as we have done for the illegal workers and overstayers. We should only consider caning as a last resort and for compelling reasons.

What we are interested is to find effective remedies and ways in solving the problem of illegal workers and overstayers in Singapore. Like a good doctor, the prescription given should be appropriate and adequate to the ailment at the time. An overdose is dangerous. It even kills.

Singapore aspires to be a middle-class society. We want Singapore to be a gracious nation and our people to be gracious. The trend and direction our legislations take reflect the society we are. As Singapore develops and progresses economically, I hope we are equally progressive in our laws. Other than crimes of violence and socially reprehensible crimes, we ought to reflect in our laws the kind of society that we are and hope to aspire to. I wish to seek assurance from the Minister that caning would be used sparingly and only as a measure of last resort.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I had opposed punishment of illegal immigrant workers by mandatory caning in the debate on the amendment to the Immigration Act in January this year. I now similarly oppose punishment by mandatory caning in the present Immigration (Amendment No. 2) Bill, and for good reasons, Sir.

Caning is a brutal, barbarous form of punishment. It is demeaning both to those who are punished and to those who inflict the punishment. It is a punishment presently meted out to those who have committed the most serious and heinous crimes like armed robbery and the like. Nevertheless, because caning is a punishment that goes so very much against civilized thinking and morality it now has been abolished in not civilized countries for even the most serious crimes. But Singapore has bucked against the universal trend.

Contrary to what Mr Philip Tan has said, caning was not introduced as a punish- ment for criminals. In 1966, the PAP Government introduced caning as a form of punishment against political opponents for so-called vandalism. It was a most savage attack on political opponents by a most undemocratic government. In 1984, the Government introduced caning as a form of punishment for the "offence of engaging in the business of or trade or knowingly transporting prohibited immigrants." But here, the convicted offenders were only liable to caning. There was no mandatory caning. That is, the Judge would decide, on the concrete circumstances obtaining, whether or not to inflict caning on the person to be punished.

The present Bill, however, provides for mandatory caning for traffickers, for employers who knowingly employ more than five illegal immigrant workers. In mandatory caning, the Judge no longer has any say in the matter of punishment of the offender. In fact, the Minister has usurped the functions of the Court. It is the Minister who is passing the sentence, not the Judge. It is not unlike a form of justice meted out by a kangaroo court.

The Minister in effect says that the amendment is introduced in an attempt to show the world (well, not in those exact words) that the Government is even-handed. And indeed, that is what the whole idea of the Bill is about. Because the law now inflicts mandatory caning on illegal immigrant workers who are overstayers, Government argues that it is fair to inflict mandatory caning also on traffickers and employers of illegal immigrant workers. But the argument is fallacious.

Caning of illegal immigrants is already morally wrong. Caning of traffickers or employers is also morally wrong, in spite of what Dr Beng says. And the two wrongs do not make one right. The press has also pointed out possible difficulties in pinpointing who the employer is in certain cases. Moreover, as we all know, there are various stages of sub-contracting in the construction industry.

Some people argue that traffickers of illegal immigrant workers deserve to be punished and punished more severely. I would agree, Sir. However, I disagree that caning be used as a form of punishment in this kind of offence. I believe that punishment must really fit the crime. As far as I know, in general, there are two categories of crimes: violent and non-violent. The punishment of caning could be excused for those who commit violent crimes like armed robbery, murder, rape, kidnapping. But caning could not be excused for the offence of illegal immigrant workers overstaying, trafficking, and employment of illegal immigrant workers. Traffickers of illegal immigrant workers may be said to be unscrupulous. But employers of illegal immigrant workers are merely businessmen with an eye to quick profits, as was pointed out by Mr Philip Tan, and I agree with him. Instead of caning, why not impose on them heavy fines and prison terms, even for aggravated offenders? That should be sufficient punishment to fit the crime. That would be a more civilized punishment for those who traffic in, or employ illegal immigrant workers, than caning which is degrading, brutal and barbaric. We are living in the late 20th century. We are not living in the Dark Ages.

After the first amendment to the Immigration Act and the arrest of illegal immigrant workers, overstayers and non-overstayers, there was a great outcry from neighbouring countries. We all remember what a difficult time the Singapore Government had in its relations with Thailand, India and other countries on the matter. Perhaps face was saved all round in the end. And it could be said that all is well. But has all really ended well? The whole affair has exposed the non-caring, callous and sadistic nature of the Singapore Government as well as its braggadocio and unnecessary arrogance in its assertions of Singapore independence in decision-making. Unnecessary! This is not going to help Singapore to win friends from abroad. Instead, it will only go to create unhappy feelings and even hostility among people who are now our friends.

The present punishment to provide for caning for traffickers and employers of illegal immigrant workers may not cause any international commotion. But caning as a punishment is not the mark of a modern progressive nation. Singapore has already gained the unsavoury distinction of being a country that does not uphold justice for the people. I hope, in conclusion, that Singapore will not also be known internationally as a country that enacts uncivilized, barbaric laws against the people. Caning as a form of punishment for non-violent crimes should be abolished. Let Singapore become a really civilized nation.

Mr Lim Boon Heng (Kebun Baru): Sir, I do not like caning. Nor do I like jails. Yet it is necessary for society, for the community, to punish offenders.

The debate today, as the GPC Chairman for Home Affairs has said, focuses on what punishment is appropriate for the offence committed. So I respect the views of Members who may be speaking or who have spoken against caning out of a personal sense of values.

But the question before us is how to find an effective means of bringing order to the problem of illegal employment. This House earlier this year passed legislation to impose compulsory caning on foreigners found to have overstayed and worked illegally. And developments since then have proven the measure to be most effective.

The previous attempts at solving the problem through imposition of longer jail sentences or fines had little effect. That was why the Government was forced into the unpleasant step of imposing compulsory caning for illegal workers and, as we all know, this has almost completely solved the problem.

But there are at least two parties in employment, the employer and the employee. With foreign workers, unfortunately, there is also a third party, the recruitment agent. Many people, both foreign and local, have said in the past few months that the law did not treat the parties equally. The worker, who may be uninformed, misinformed or misled, faces the harshest of punishments, whilst the employer and the agent, who should be better informed, are let off so lightly and profit in the process.

Furthermore, it can be said if there are no employers willing to employ illegal workers, there would be no problem of illegal employees. So it should be logical to go to the root of the problem and tackle the small number of employers and agents, rather than to punish the thousands of workers.

The experiences of the last few months, especially through the involvement of the National Trades Union Congress in solving the problem, have brought to light some unscrupulous practices to show that those who have sought to profit from employment of illegal foreign workers deserve severe punishment, instead of the workers themselves.

For example, a Thai worker wishing to get work in Singapore has to pay an agent fees of between $1,500 to $4,000. This is no small sum, even for Singaporeans whose average pay is higher than the Thai workers. And yet, how much is a Thai worker paid at our construction site? On average, $16 per day. How long would such a worker have to overstay and work before he is able to recover the amount that he has paid to the agents? Such agents, whether they be Thais or Singaporeans, or both working together, are exploiters of human misery or human suffering. They, more than the workers, deserve caning.

It was also found that some employers of foreign workers, whether they were legally employed or illegally employed, were deducting $1 per day from the workers' wages for some kind of vague insurance or provident fund or for some vague tax purposes. Some employers deduct wages if a worker needs medical treatment. If he has to go and see a doctor for half a day, his pay is deducted. If a worker who has worked for as long as two years in Singapore wishes to return home to visit his family has to pay his employer $200 before departure. So are we not ashamed of such employers? Are these practices not reprehensible? Are these practices not demeaning of the character and dignity of workers, whether they be local or foreign? So what have these foreign workers found? A pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Sadly, no.

These illegal workers have been at the mercy of both agents and employers. And so long as their status is illegal, they would not dare to complain or to seek redress. And so long as our immigration laws remain ineffective in ending the practice of illegal employment, there will be little incentive for employers to find better methods of work.

I have cited primarily the construction industry because this is where the bulk of illegal foreign workers have been found. How do we explain the fact that although the cost of labour and materials is higher in developed countries, their construction costs, excluding land cost, are lower than Singapore's? Does this not mean that there is a lot of scope for improvement in our own work methods that we should not merely be looking to cheap foreign labour to service our construction industry?

So long as there is a ready supply of cheap foreign labour, the wages in the construction industry will remain low, and no local Singapore worker will be able to afford to work in the industry. So my question to employers and to those who have spoken out in the interest of employers is: Is cheap labour the only way of making money? Is making money only possible if one breaks the law? I think we have to answer that fundamental question.

If the Ministry of Labour is not so willing to be liberal in granting work permits, I think it is up to the employers as a group to make their representations. And if they can justify their case, I am sure the Ministry of Labour can be convinced.

Reference was also made to the shortage of labour in relation to town councils. What I know is that some of the contractors do have problems getting workers. But let me cite to you what kind of wages such employers are willing to pay. In my own town council, I heard that one of the contractors who was not able to get enough workers went round house to house and offered jobs to housewives. At what pay? $150 per month. Now, who is going to work for a monthly wage of $150? Who is prepared to work for $150 per month? If we want to discuss the issue of the tight labour market, I think it can do with more time, but since the subject today is on the question of tackling the problem of illegal workers, I think we should tackle the problem at its root. I support this measure, no matter how unpleasant it is, and I do not envy the Minister for having to move this Bill.

I support the Bill.

Mr Goh Chee Wee (Boon Lay): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Amendment Bill.

I support the Government in stipulating stricter regulations providing for more severe punishment in dealing with employers of illegal workers and traffickers of illegal immigrants. Recently, when Government passed the provision of severe of punishment, including mandatory caning to deal with illegal immigrant workers, this aroused a lot of argument and criticism. But it has proved to be very effective as it resulted in many illegal workers reporting themselves to the authorities, so that we were able to send them back in a short time.

Both inside and outside the House, there have been criticisms of the Bills. There have also been unpleasant arguments and misunderstandings with other countries. Fortunately, in dealing with this matter our Government has been very cautious and flexible in its approach. Other organizations, particularly the NTUC, also played a very important role in dealing with this matter so that our relationship with foreign countries, particularly Thailand, had not deteriorated. On careful examination of the situation we can see the undeniable fact that the main cause for the large number of illegal immigrant workers coming to Singapore is that many Singapore employers want to employ cheap labour and avoid having to pay levy. Therefore, there are also third parties who are willing to arrange for such illegal workers to sneak into Singapore. From our conscience, we know that some illegal workers are innocent victims who have been cheated by traffickers and agents. Many of them have paid s our attention to those who traffic in illegal workers and those who employ such workers by inflicting severe punishments on them. Therefore I support the amendments introduced by the Minister for these purposes.

As far as I know, up to now no illegal worker has yet been punished by caning under the new law. So I hope both the agents and the employers will abide by our laws and regulations. As long as they do not infringe our laws or commit the said offences they shall have no fear of being punished by caning.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to oppose the Amendment Bill.

Sir, I have listened intently to the opening address of the Minister and I cannot find anything in what he said to justify such a draconian measure, ie, caning of employers who either traffic in one or more illegal immigrants, or employ five or more of the overstayers. Sir, the word "unscrupulous" is used against the employers. I think we have to distinguish the types of employers. I would say they are unscrupulous if they exploit the workers, as has been mentioned by Mr Lim Boon Heng, making the workers pay $1 a day to see the doctor and then on their sick leave they are not given their pay leave. That is one form of exploiting workers. They are unscrupulous employers.

But on the other hand they are business people. They are business people who bring in workers and who, in the course of their business, must employ foreign workers. These are business people. They are not unscrupulous. They are carrying out a proper business. Sometimes through no fault of theirs, they might be caught in this unfortunate law. And how are they going to get out of it? Sometimes it is difficult to get out of a technical point of law.

Sir, I would say that at the moment the measures of the punishments in our law are already sufficient. I can see that even in the present section that is to be amended, there is already a provision for caning. I am referring to para. (c) of clause 2 of the Amendment Bill. Sir, this is to amend a provision in the present law. As i can see it, in the present law there is already caning, but not three strokes. I may be wrong, but this is how I see it. Because when a person is caught trafficking in illegal immigrants is liable, on conviction, to a sentence of not less than two years and not more than five years and shall also be liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000 and caning. Sir, the word "and" is conjunctive there. Therefore, he is liable to imprisonment, he is liable to a maximum fine of $10,00, and caning. But the Judge has the discretion of meting out one stroke or two strokes at the most. But under our law, the $10,000 fine is taken out and in its place a mandatory three strokes.

Sir, I would say the present amendment is too draconian. members have described it as barbaric. I think those terms are quite appropriate in view of the severity of the punishment.

Sir, we have just amended the immigration laws, not more than seven months ago. Now we are again before this House to amend the law further. Has the Government over-reacted to the situation? Or has the Government not given proper thought in its law-making? Or has the Government been under pressure from foreign governments whose workers are affected by our amended law. Is the Government going to appease the foreign governments and, to look good, we amend out laws now? And to appear fair to the government, we not only punish foreigners but we also punish our own locals with caning? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on that.

Sir, we have also said that the caning measures meted out for foreign illegal workers have proven successful. Has it? The matter is not over yet. Because not one worker has been caned yet. Amnesty after amnesty has been given. So the whole chapter has not ended yet. We cannot be too quick to say that it has proven successful. Yes, it is successful in flushing out 12,000 and later on when they have a final amnesty, we have another 393 overstayers who surrendered themselves. But the fact is that none of them have been caned yet. So until the measure is being meted out, we do not know whether this law is going to be successful or not, whether or not Singaporeans will suffer reprisals. We do not know yet. So I think we should be mindful of this before we quickly come to the conclusion that the imposition of caning on foreign workers is a success.

Sir, with this new amendment, as the Member of Paya Lebar has said, we have become one of the first to mete punishment by caning for commercial crimes. Sir, businessmen are now going to be caned. Under the law where a corporate body is found guilty, its director, manager or secretary can be caned. So I think this will strike fear in our business community. Somebody talks of psychological affect. I think the terror of caning will have a great psychological effect on our community. The Prime Minister has moaned: why are our citizens emigrating from Singapore. Perhaps this is one of the reasons, the harsh punishments. People are fearful of the punishments that are going to be meted out. They cannot even make one mistake, and for one mistake they will have to suffer such severe punishment. The psychological effect, Sir, is real. I hope the Minister will not brush it away.

Sir, the Vision of Singapore for the 1990's is to have a more enlightened society. How can we accomplish this vision when, in fact, we are going backwards - to mete out caning which is equivalent to flogging? It is almost going back to the Dark Ages. So we are not moving forward with this law. In fact, we are moving backward. I would urge the Minister to reconsider the amendment, and not only not to go on with this present amendment, but to amend the previous amendments, ie to take away caning from our Immigration Act. Of course, in law, mandatory punishments are never good. As it has already been mentioned, it will take away the discretion of the judge, because the judge is there sitting and judging over the case. He can hear the persons involved personally, and he is there to see. He has been given the autho- rity to mete out punishment. I think we should not take that authority away from him by making caning as a mandatory sentence.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I see the need to introduce such a tough measure to curb the influx of illegal immigrants. But I also see the need for us to review the issue of work permits. Caning of illegal immigrants, agents and employers, will still not solve the fundamental question facing us, ie, our labour shortage. So long as there is good economic growth, and that is what we want, I see the need for workers increasing. So long as the situation remains as it is today, I do not think that all the laws and regulations made in this House is going to help greatly. People will find ways to circumvent our laws and regulations. We will try to stop it by closing the loopholes. In the meantime the game of hide and seek will continue to prevail at ground level between the companies and the authorities.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is a question of survival of these businesses, especially the smaller ones, which have difficulties in getting work permit workers. No one can afford to give up their livelihood that readily. It is easy to call for upgrading, change of trade, amalgamate. But the business world is not run like the civil service which can effect change but need not be aware of the effects of the change.

Once I visited a factory and the manager showed me around. He told me why he could only upgrade to a certain level and that beyond that it was not possible and he needs manpower to finish the products which are of different specifications and sizes. It is simply not possible to upgrade, he said, not because of the cost but because of the constant change in specifications of the products. Businesses depend on customer needs. They cannot upgrade to please us. They will upgrade if it is economical and possible. Every month they have to work for their income. They do not have fixed monthly salaries.

Then, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is not uncommon for us MPs to hear stories of the small employers failing to get workers and they are desperately running around to hunt for these workers. When you get a situation like this, there will be problems. The company will have to take risks if orders have to be met. Agents will exploit the situation. I am told that in the past certain businesses that can get workers more readily because of the value of their contracts have some of these workers hived off to smaller establishments and these smaller establishments will act somewhat like agents in getting workers from other businesses, and these together with their illegal workers are passed on to the various companies. We are trying to stop this practice by caning illegal immigrants but I wonder how successful we will be.

I therefore see two major problems. First, the big companies, in spite of their quota, still need workers. Second, the small and medium- sized companies feel that they are being discriminated because they cannot get the workers. Let me expand on this. The present situation of the distribution of work permits has created a politics of envy among the small businesses. They complain that big companies get the workers, enjoy the benefits of overtime work with little adjustment in their salaries and, above all, need not pay CPF for such workers. Yes, they pay the levy but I was told that this has been incorporated into the salary structure. The small businessman has to pay higher wages to Singaporean workers who work from 8.00 am to 5.00 pm. He has to pay full CPF and this will add to his cost. Worse still, he cannot get workers even if he is prepared to pay for the levy. He feels psychologically excluded from this policy. In such a situation, we might unknowingly be forcing some of our enterprising Singaporeans to commit a crime.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the present situation reminds me of my medical student days when I had to do a subject called bacteriology. For bacteria to grow you need the right medium, and in the right culture medium you can see bacteria growth very readily. So long as you do not change the medium, the bacteria thrives. If you add the right antibiotics, you can see rings in the culture medium indicating that the bacteria has been killed and the antibiotic has been effective. Today, the crux of our problem, shortage of labour, provides the right medium for the growth of illegal trafficking of workers. We are only nipping at the problem. We must review this situation. Perhaps for a start we should apply the quota system of 6 Singaporean workers to 4 foreign workers to more sectors of our economy and if Singaporeans are prepared to pay for the levy we should be more flexible.

To avoid employing illegal workers unknowingly, as feared by the Member for Paya Lebar and the Member for Potong Pasir, I would suggest that they check with two departments when they want to employ workers - the Labour Ministry and the Immigration Department. In fact, to facilitate this, it may be proper to set up a special unit to expedite case-tracing of these workers. This will save time and facilitate business.

Finally, I am not in favour of first-time offenders being caned. I would prefer to make mandatory caning for the second time offenders.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Cheng San GRC): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs.

When the Immigration Act was amended this January, I was then against it and I would like, with your permission, Sir, to explain why I now support the current amendments.

I am still against caning per se for non-violent offences. If I have my rathers I would rather that this amendment be not brought up now and that we look at the first amendment in January to review other methods of solving and containing this problem of illegal immigration and overstayers. However, I do not think I will be able to have my rathers and, being a pragmatic person, I think this Bill will be perhaps the second best choice. There are two reasons.

The first reason has been touched quite extensively, that is, the question of equity, the equity of punishment to fit the crime. Sir, if we look at the whole operation, there are basically three perpetrators, the traf- ficker, the employer and the illegal worker. Moreover, it was my belief, and it is now my belief, that the workers are more often the victims, as you probably have seen in the actual case of the Thai who was charged under this Act.

An hon. Member: Somkid.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: I know the name Somkid. They were probably promised a worker's heaven in Singapore, paved in gold. So they sell off some of their personal possessions, borrow money from loan sharks and pay a high price to get here. When they get here, what do they get? Sir, most probably they are given forged papers, exploitative wages and also the constant fear of arrest.

Yet, Sir, the law, as it presently stands, gives them the heaviest and the most severe punishment while the other two parties are the more guilty perpetrators. As the Minister has said, this Bill seeks to redress this inequity.

But, Sir, the law as I understand it is really not interested in punishment or revenge. Its primary purpose must be a deterrence, ie, it tries to prevent the offence from being committed in the first place. Therefore, if such a law, after enactment, is never used, not because the Government is fearful of using it but because nobody breaks the law, that law must be a very good piece of legislation, including its punishment provisions.

Sir, therein lies the second reason for my support, because as I said earlier, I oppose caning per se. I do fervently hope that nobody, including the illegal immigrants and workers, will ever be caned. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, they may also be the victims, the persons-cheated. They may be ignorant of our laws and so without knowing the seriousness of the offence they come to Singapore. They may be caught.

The same cannot be said of the employers and traffickers. The employers are the source and the trafficker provides the supply to feed the demand. Without the demand for illegal workers by employers, one can say that there will be no illegal workers. Hence, Sir, if because of the fear of being caned, this trade of trafficking and employing illegal immigrants and overstayers is stopped, it will also mean the removal of the main reason for illegal entry and overstaying in the first place. Hopefully, this means that there will be no illegal workers and therefore the law will never be used.

Sir, I know that this is a torturous way of being harsh to be kind. But if it helps to eliminate illegal immigrants and overstayers, why not?

Sir, I would like to touch on another question of labour shortage. I do agree that labour shortage is a problem that needs to be reviewed and discussed in greater detail than the time given to this particular amendment. But I would like to touch on a point which I feel must be answered. Members had earlier commented on a number of points which I must say I disagree with. One is thes question of relocation.

Sir, Singapore is moving very much on to a higher level of production and certain industries that can only survive with cheap labour which Singapore cannot provide must relocate. It is not a question of being more expensive. It is a question of survival. In fact, I have examples of entrepreneurs who have relocated to Johor and they tell me that it is overall much cheaper there, despite the average time of roughly 45 minutes to an hour coming from their factory in, say, Pasir Gudang down to Singapore. If you look at examples in other countries, like in Japan, they have relocated many of their industries overseas not only in the country of consumption, like the United States or the EEC but also in places like Singapore and Thailand where their products are meant for export. Yet nobody says that the Japanese products are uncompetitive.

In closing, Sir, I would like to seek two clarifications from the Minister. One is the definition of 'employers' who could be caned under the new law. Sir, it is important to clarify this because, as has been said earlier, in a large organization there are chief executive officers, directors, senior people who may not be aware of the type of workers that are being employed by their personnel officers. I know that the key operative word in the amendment is "knowingly". Does this mean that if the prosecution cannot prove that a director or a company secretary or a CEO knows his company has employed illegal immigrants or overstayers, then he cannot be caned? Does this also refer to subcontractors down the line which means that if a contractor is being supplied with illegal workers by a subcontractor and he does not know it, then he cannot be caned too?

The second point is a point that has been brought up by the Member for Ayer Rajah, and that is, that the Government could help by having the Immigration Department and the Work Permit Office provide a hotline, and I say "hotline", because speedy service is important. It should be a hotline information service for potential employers so that an employer wishing to employ foreign workers can verify the authenticity of the papers that they are given by the contractors, subcontractors or by the agents. Sir, with such a service, the Government will be seen to provide the industries and the employers with the necessary assistance to make sure that they have sufficient information and knowledge so as not to break the new law.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

No one can dispute that the presence of a large number of illegal immigrant workers can pose serious social and security problems. When caning was introduced for illegal immigrants entering Singapore to work in January this year, many Singaporeans were surprised to find that more than 10,000 illegal immigrant workers surrendered themselves during the amnesty period. This certainly was a very large number and if left unchecked, more illegal immigrant workers will enter Singapore to work.

With the benefit of hindsight, it must be obvious even to opponents of caning that the introduction of caning for illegal immigrant workers was effective in flushing out the illegal workers. More than 10,000 of them were subsequently sent back to their respective countries. The measure taken had initially caused some flurry in Thailand over the issue of Thai illegal immigrant workers. Nonetheless, the matter has for the time being amicably resolved.

However, there still remains a residue of the problem of illegal immigrant workers. This problem will not be solved completely if we do not take the stronger action to deter traffickers or local employers from hiring illegal immigrant workers. Despite the stringent measures in our legislation for illegal immigrant workers, there could be some who are still prepared to take the risk of entering Singapore illegally to work, hoping that they would not be detected, especially when there are still employers who are willing to hire them illegally in order to save the payment of foreign workers levy to the Government. This is because the law at present is not stringent enough to deter unscrupulous employers from doing so. With the introduction of caning for traffickers and employers who employ illegal immigrant workers, I am quite sure it will act as a strong deterrent to them from doing so.

With the passing of this Bill, employers and traffickers will now find it not worth the while to take risk in employing foreign workers illegally. It is with this in mind that I support the Bill before us as a further measure to eliminate the problem of illegal immigrant workers working in Singapore. What it finally means is this - even if there were foreign workers who take the risk of entering Singapore illegally to work, they would now find difficulty in getting employers or traffickers who are willing to employ them. This makes coming to Singapore illegally to work a very unattractive and unrealistic proposition.

The Minister for Labour (Mr Lee Yock Suan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as many Members have mentioned the work permit policy and the labour shortage, I think I should respond.

Firstly, just a point of clarification. There are two types of illegal workers in Singapore. I have mentioned this before but some Members may not have heard me saying it or may not have understood what I said. The first type is the immigration offenders. These are the workers who enter Singapore illegally or overstay their immigration passes. Most of these are male construction workers, mostly labourers, from Thailand and India. Mr Philip Tan mentioned just now that one reason why these employers hire illegal workers is because of the labour shortage and the fact that we do not issue work permits to them. But this is not true, and he himself admitted this, that work permits have been issued liberally to the construction sector. In fact, over the last few months we have issued more in-principle approvals than we have ever done in such a short period of time. And I am sure the shortage situation in the construction industry will soon disappear. The basic motive for the employers in the sector and the agents is just to escape levy. So I think in that situation the application of caning is necessary.

The other foreign workers are those who are here on valid social visit passes (or SVPs). These are mostly Malaysians who are allowed to stay here and every two weeks they have to go back and renew their Immigration stamps.

Today we are discussing the Bill to amend the Immigration Act which governs the immigration offenders. It concerns their employers and harbourers. As several Members have conceded, even those who opposed this Bill in the past, it has been necessary to introduce caning for such offences because the jail term has proven ineffective, and the recent months have shown that caning, although unpleasant, has produced results.

My Ministry administers the Regulation of Employment Act which applies to illegal workers who have valid immigration papers. The penalty under this Act is a maximum fine of $5,000 or imprisonment up to one year or both. This applies to both the illegal worker and his employer. This law has not been affected by the recent amendments although we may have to review it in due course. But I do not think we are thinking of caning in that situation.

Coming next to the work permit policy and the labour shortage, the Government has to regulate carefully the entry of foreign workers into Singapore to minimize their long-term social and economic costs. I think most Members will accept this point. The question is how to tackle the labour shortage situation and still achieve our long-term objective.

There are already more than 150,000 foreign workers in Singapore and the number is increasing. We must allocate the limited number of foreign workers to the more productive sectors, those which are export-oriented and high value-added. It is not possible for us to cater to all the demands for foreign workers. As Mr Heng Chiang Meng has mentioned, it is part of the normal process of economic growth and restructuring that, as you go for higher level activities, you must discard the lower value activities. It is just like the situation of a young boy growing up. As you grow older you must give up your small shirt. You cannot go on wearing the small shirt and refuse to give it up. You have to give the small shirt to your younger brother and then go on to something else. So this is part of the process of economic growth and restructuring.

We must not forget in our debate what is our basic objective. Our basic objective is to achieve a stronger economy and to provide better paying jobs for Singaporeans. This must be the basic objective. We cannot grow by simply importing more and more unskilled foreign workers. True, the labour market is tight and we have full employment. But a tight labour market is in fact good for Singaporean workers, provided we remain internationally competitive and continue to upgrade our economic activities. This appears to be the situation today. Workers have enjoyed good pay increases and bonuses and at the same time companies are also making good profits. Of course, if they can have more workers, they can make more profits. But there must be a limit to the number of foreign workers that we can allow in.

The situation has also resulted in better use of our domestic manpower resources. For example, many housewives are now working part time or doing home-based jobs. You would have discovered as you go on round your house-to-house visits that more and more housewives are doing some work at home, eg, simple assembly jobs, and so on, or they are now working part time in factories. In the past when I went round they used to complain that they could not get jobs. So because of this labour shortage and because we have been careful to regulate the issue of work permits, they have now been able to find jobs.

Similarly, many older Singaporeans and retirees are working or interested to return to work. These people number in the hundreds of thousands. Not all of them want to work, but quite a number of them would like to work if the conditions are right. So this is a source of labour that we have not tapped. Some of you may remember the article in the Straits Times recently reporting about the older workers in McDonald's. Personally, I found that to be a very encouraging report because it shows that when employers try hard enough and are prepared to accommodate the older workers, they in fact find that these are better workers. And even the employees and the managers call these older ladies "Aunties" (maybe there are some "Uncles" as well), and they are there to show the way to the younger workers. They are not affected by school examinations. They are more serious about their work and they are able to do the job as well, if not better than the younger workers.

Such developments might not have taken place if we are too liberal with our work permits because to the employers it is a question of dollars and cents. Why hire an older worker who may perhaps be a bit slower, need a bit more training, maybe you have to pay him or her a bit more, as compared to a worker from Malaysia who is young and willing to work for lower wages? That is a basic dollar and cents issue.

Unfortunately, from our records of employers who register with the Employment Service Division for jobs, many are still insisting on workers below 45 years old or even below 35 years old. So the whole basic attitude of our employers towards employment of the more senior workers has still not changed. True, in a tight labour market, employers have to compete harder for workers. Therefore, Members, I myself included, can expect more pressure from supporters who are running small businesses. They are faced with a situation where they have to compete harder for workers.

However, we should also balance the interest of these groups with those of the vast majority of our constituents who are workers. No doubt, these people are very vociferous, they help us, they provide some financial support, they want us to loosen up on the work permit controls. To the extent that we can allow them, we have done so. For example, if they are willing to recruit 5 '0' levels or skilled workers, or if they recruit workers who are already in the unapproved sectors, we have allowed them. And we have also allowed employers who employ less than 10 workers to hire foreign workers, as I mentioned in my reply to the oral question earlier on. But the fact is many of these employers are catering to the domestic sector.

Whilst we may sympathize with them, we must ask several questions. Have they tried hard enough to hire local workers, including older Singaporeans? Is their pay adequate for the type of job? Take hairdressers, for example. Are there too many of them? Should they not get together and open for shorter hours during peak periods? Should they not have an appointment system perhaps? All these changes must take place. Some changes have already taken place, as you can see from the better layout in the coffee shops, in the fast food joints, in the supermarkets and so on. But it is part of the upgrading process that must go on - the better use of our workers. One good example that was brought out by Mr Lim Boon Heng is this question of the construction industry. It is true. CIDB has done a study and found that, in fact, construction costs are lower in some countries with higher wage costs than ours . Whereas here, because we have this large pool of foreign workers wanting to come in and willing to work for low wages, therefore the incentive to apply better methods is not there.

We must continue to maintain this pressure. As Singapore becomes more developed and salaries rise, the cost of personal services must increase. The way to provide such services must also change. This is what has happened in the developed countries. We cannot expect to enjoy high income on the one hand and low cost services which can only be provided by cheap foreign labour on the other hand.

Before I conclude, I would just like to comment briefly on some of the remarks made by Mr Philip Tan, who is forever championing all and sundry who are clamouring for more foreign workers. Firstly, it is not true that we only issue permits to multi-nationals and foreigners. Most of the contractors in the construction industry, most of the shipyards, many of the manufacturing companies, most of the domestic employers, these are all locals. Many of the local industries have not found it necessary to employ foreign workers, like banks, stockbrokers and so on, even hotels, because they have been able to attract local workers. Even amongst multi-nationals, you have some companies which can operate with less than 10% foreign workers. There are others that cannot seem to have enough. Even if we give them 40%, 50%, they will still want more. So it is a question of management. It is a question of productivity and whether they are prepared to pay a bit more to retain the workers.

This point about the construction workers and issue of permits, I have already touched on. I do not want to go into a long debate today on this work permit policy. It is a question that comes very often in our labour shortage situation. Of course, my Ministry is closely monitoring the situation and we are conscious of this problem. We are trying to balance the two objectives: how to achieve higher economic growth on the one hand, and control the pool of foreign workers on the other hand. So if Members have good ideas, we will be happy to listen to them. But we must always be conscious of the need to balance the interest of the vast majority of Singaporeans who are workers against the clamours of a few employers who want to make more profits.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can I ask the Minister a point of clarification. As the Minister recognizes that there are Malaysians on social visit passes working in Singapore, will he not review this unhealthy situation so that the employer does not become a law breaker, neither does the employee become a law breaker?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: As I have said, we are constantly reviewing our policies on the labour market, and this is one problem area that we have been studying.

Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong: If you do not mind, I would like to clarify certain things. I did not mention that work permits were given only to the multi-nationals. I did not state that. I mentioned they were given only to those approved industries that the Labour Ministry has designated. I also mentioned that many of my constituents in the Paya Lebar side are actually smaller local businessmen. They often have a lot of problem in getting work permits. These are the people that I am referring to.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: I just want to thank Mr Philip Tan for his clarification. But I thought I understood the drift of his message quite well - that he thinks we are being too tight with work permits. I myself as an MP also face the same problem. But it is the same question - if you liberalize, are you going to get a big flood of applications for work permits? Or should we, as we are doing now, selectively allow some if they have skills, if they have 5 'O' levels, for example, maybe from Hong Kong. They can also recruit other workers who are already here, as I have mentioned. Say, if one of them is working in a coffee shop and wants to change job to another coffee shop, we can allow that.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken. I also want to thank my colleague, the Minister for Labour, for having dealt with the different ideas and suggestions concerning the review of work permit policy. I particularly want to thank the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill, and what is noteworthy, Sir, is that included amongst them are several who in January had reservations or objections to the Bill to cane illegal immigrants or overstayers. Even one MP who still has reservations was able to say, in retrospect, that it was correct, an effective measure which was introduced in January. Some of the Members who have spoken have, in fact, answered and dealt with the points of reservation or objections raised by others.

First, let me say to those Members who have expressed discomfort or unhappiness over the caning as a measure per se. I as the Minister, and I am sure my colleagues in the Cabinet, also do not take any vicarious pleasure out of introducing a harsh measure, whether it is caning or death penalty for drug traffickers or even jailing. Any punishment is necessarily a harsh one from the point of view of the person who is sentenced to that penalty. But before we get engulfed by a swell of compassion and moralizing, what is really necessary to ask is, is there a problem? Can it be solved by other measures? Obviously if it can be solved by other measures, we would have done so. And obviously if other measures in our view are effective deterrents, we would not have brought this amendment before the House. In this regard, we must not forget the nature of the problem and the size of the problem. Mr Philip Tan in his eloquent speech said that we may be the first country in the world to have such a measure. I do not know. It may be that we are the first country. But I would rather that we be the first country in the world to have this measure than to have indefinitely or permanently a situation where 17% of our jails comprise illegal overstayers and illegal immigrants if we can effectively avoid the problem of having large numbers of illegal immigrants and overstayers. Because if we do have them floating around in Singapore, then all the disadvantages and adverse effects which were spelt out by the Minister of State for Home Affairs in introducing the Bill in January, the Immigration (Amendment) Bill, could never be overcome. Mr Lim Boon Heng hit the nail on the head when he said that it really means that you have a situation where Singaporean wages and Singaporeans' ability to find jobs will be affected. It must be so. If you have illegal workers, they are much cheaper to employ and employers will resort to them. The ultimate result must be blocking of avenues for jobs for Singaporeans and depression of wages of Singaporeans. So whose interest do we want to protect? Whose interest do we want to promote? The Government must be on the side of Singaporean workers and the interest of Singaporean workers.

If I may go to some of the points raised by Members, Sir. Mr Philip Tan raised the spectre of this amendment causing a huge exodus of investors and multi-nationals from Singapore. I think to put it mildly, he has exaggerated. What does this Bill do? This Bill that is before the House is aimed at the employer who is proved, in other words presumption does not apply, it must be proved in a court that he employed more than five illegal workers or overstayers at the same time and he did so not inadvertently or in ignorance, but it must be proved to the court that he knew that they were illegal overstayers or illegal immigrants. Will that really cause an exodus? I doubt it. If it causes an exodus of persons who would be thus such culprits, then I say good riddance because they are the ones who are likely to have caused and perpetuated the problem.

Both Mr Philip Tan and Mr Loh Meng See, I think, advocate higher monetary penalties. But let us recognize what the problem is. As I have explained before in this House, it is very difficult to catch employers and prosecute them. In the very nature of enforcement it is very difficult. Mr Loh Meng See gave figures, several hundreds who were prosecuted this year. But that was not under the Immigration Act. The figures and the cases he refers to are those employers who employed persons who are here on valid social visit pass. In other words, they were validly here, they were not illegal immigrants or overstayers. The cases that he referred to are cases under the Regulation of Employment Act, which was referred to by my colleague, the Minister for Labour. So it is very difficult to catch employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants. That is why we introduced the presumption clause to facilitate prosecution in January. If that is so, then what should be the legislative approach? The legislative approach must therefore be to deter. It must be an effective deterrent. I believe this was touched on by Mr Heng Chiang Meng because Mr Chiam See Tong asked, "Is it a deterrent? Nobody has been caned yet." But I think if a law achieves a result of, first of all, flushing out 12,000 people and repatriating them, if that result is achieved by law, even before one person is actually subjected to the infliction of the penalty, then I say that law is an effective law. Effective even before the penalty is carried out! That should be our approach to a law where it is difficult to catch someone: it must be an effective deterrent. That is the philosophy behind these amendments.

Both Dr Lee Siew-Choh and Mr Chiam See Tong said, "Well, these employers after all are businessmen." They keep emphasizing the fact that they are businessmen. "Out for a quick profit", to use the words of Dr Lee Siew-Choh. I say, so what if they are businessmen? Yes, they are businessmen. But they have to comply with the law, surely. To make a plea for them when the majority of their colleagues who are businessmen are complying with the law, surely is to condone violation of the law which is very unfair for those who take pains to comply with the provisions of the law.

One more point, if I may, to respond to Mr Chiam who has just come in. He said that the existing provision on traffickers already provides for mandatory caning because of the words "shall be liable". I have ascertained from the Attorney-General's Chambers that that is not so and that the courts in Singapore have interpreted the words "shall be liable" to not a necessarily mean mandatory caning. Hence, it is necessary to use a different form of words when mandatory punishments are envisaged.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock asked whether we could consider this penalty for second time offenders. My answer to that will be similar. It is very difficult to catch first time offenders at the very outset.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng asked for clarification whether chief executive officers, personnel managers, company secretaries will be liable, and under what situation. If they are proceeded with under this amendment, the same approach must follow. In other words, it must be proved that any one of them had actual knowledge. In other words, the same ingredients for the offence which are spelt out earlier will also apply and if the prosecution cannot prove, then of course the court will not convict.

Suggestions were made both by Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Mr Heng Chiang Meng that some arrangements should be there for employers to clarify the status of potential workers with the Ministry of Labour and the Immigration Department. This is something which I will take up with the Immigration Department. But we must not forget that in a vast number of cases the potential employer would, in fact, have been the sponsor, applying for work permits on behalf of the workers he intends to employ. In cases where he gets them from a different source, where he does not have to be the sponsor for the work permit applicant, then there should be no problem in him ascertaining the status with the relevant department.

Sir, I think I have answered most of the questions.

Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong: Sir, can I have your permission to clarify something that the Minister has said? I think the Minister has misquoted me by saying that I exaggerated that this amendment will cause an exodus of investors. I never did say that. What I said was that this amendment may engender a psychological fear which may prevent potential investors from coming to Singapore.

Prof. Jayakumar: I thank him for his clarification. The answer that I gave for the question which he says he did not pose applies equally to the clarification that he has given!

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. - [Prof. Jayakumar].

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