MYANMESE AIRLINE PASSENGERS (Interception at Changi Airport)

Mr Lau Ping Sum asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will inform the House if the Government has investigated the circumstances under which 11 Myanmese airline passengers en route to Bangkok from Australia were reportedly intercepted at Changi Airport and sent to Myanmar instead and what is the outcome of the investigations.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member is probably referring to reports in Bangkok newspapers and in Asiaweek of 18th August 1993 concerning

11 Myanmar seamen who were flying from Australia where they had won a wage dispute mediated by the International Transport Workers Federation en route to Bangkok. Asiaweek said that Myanmar military intelligence agents apparently intercepted them at Changi Airport and bought them passage to Yangon.

I directed the Internal Security Department (ISD) to conduct a thorough investigation to establish the facts. ISD's investigations have established the following.

On 3rd June 1993, at about 7.00 pm, 11 Myanmar seamen arrived at Changi Airport on a Qantas flight from Brisbane. They had originally been booked on a connecting flight from Singapore to Bangkok. But this second leg of their itinerary had been cancelled at the Australian end. As a result, their journey terminated in Singapore.

Earlier, on 2nd June, the First Secretary of the Myanmar Embassy in Singapore had received a request from the Chairman of Star Corporation Shipping Company, representing the employer of the seamen, asking him to help repatriate the seamen to Yangon. The First Secretary replied he could not do so without instructions from Yangon. Subsequently, he received such instructions from the Foreign Ministry of Myanmar to assist in repatriating the seamen for breach of agreement relating to their employment.

When the seamen arrived in Singapore on 3rd June 1993, the First Secretary got the Qantas Airport Duty Manager to assist him to detain the passports of the 11 Myanmar seamen and to hold the seamen under escort until their departure for Yangon. For this purpose, the First Secretary handed to Qantas a copy of a letter from the Myanmar Embassy addressed to the OC Immigration Changi Airport with copies to Qantas and Airport Police. The letter requested Immigration to detain the passports of the 11 seamen and to assist in repatriating them to Yangon. Neither Immigration nor Airport Police received the letter. The First Secretary admitted that it was never faxed to the Airport Police. He believed that he may have faxed the copy for Immigration to Qantas on the assumption that Qantas would forward it to Immigration.

The First Secretary tried to put the 11 seamen on a flight to Yangon the next day, 4th June 1993, but did not succeed. Three days later, on 7th June 1993, the seamen were eventually flown to Yangon on a Silkair flight. During the whole period, the seamen were confined under SATS guard in an area in Changi Airport normally used to temporarily hold passengers who are prohibited to land in Singapore or other passengers who, because of irregularities of their travel documents, have to be returned to their point of embarkation by the relevant airlines.

On the basis of the facts established so far, the following conclusions can be drawn:

(a) The actions of the First Secretary of the Myanmar Embassy which resulted in the physical confinement of the 11 seamen were most irregular and, if against the will of the 11 seamen, also illegal. The seamen had not been prohibited by Singapore Immigration from landing in Singapore. They would have been allowed to enter Singapore had they sought to do so. The Myanmar Embassy did not raise with the proper Singapore authorities their desire to repatriate these passengers to Yangon. Although they claimed to have faxed their letter to Immigration and the Airport Police, instead they dealt exclusively with the Qantas Manager throughout the whole episode. The First Secretary told the investigators that although he could not have exercised these powers in Myanmar, he was entitled, as a diplomat in Singapore, to detain the seamen. This assertion of jurisdiction is totally unfounded.

(b) Qantas was wrong to assist the Myanmar Embassy. The second leg of the seamen's itinerary from Brisbane via Qantas had been cancelled and their baggage tagged for off-loading at Singapore. Therefore, Qantas' responsibility for these 11 passengers ended when they landed in Singapore, especially since Qantas was subsequently not involved in arranging for the seamen to leave Singapore. All these arrangements had been done by the Myanmar Embassy officials. Qantas had no basis whatsoever to act on the Myanmar Embassy's request to confine the seamen for four days, all this at Qantas' own expense.

(c) As for the SATS security officers, ISD's investigations have not established any intentional contravention of the law. However, it was clearly wrong of them to have confined the seamen purely on the request of Qantas and the Myanmar Embassy. The present arrangements for SATS to hold people in the airport pending repatriation are unsatisfactory and must be reviewed. This review has already commenced.

(d) There has been no evidence that Myanmar intelligence officials were involved, contrary to Asiaweek report.

(e) Immigration Department, Police, CAAS and other Singapore Government Departments were not involved.

Sir, the Government takes a very serious view of this incident. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has formally protested to the Myanmar Embassy over the actions and conduct of their First Secretary in this affair.

ISD investigation papers have been sent to the Attorney-General to determine whether any party has committed any offence, or whether anyone has been negligent and failed to exercise due care and attention in his duties.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Cheng San GRC): Sir, if the Minister says that the First Secretary's action could be considered illegal, may I ask him what offence did he commit?

Prof. Jayakumar: As I said, the Attorney-General is reviewing the papers. I would say that in my discussions with him the offence would probably be that of wrongful confinement and/or abetment of wrongful confinement. The evidence thus far does suggest that apart from the involvement of the Myanmar Embassy, Qantas staff and SATS have given assistance in the confinement of these 11 seamen. Obviously, the Attorney-General would have to study the papers and decide who has committed what breach of the law and what consequential actions must be taken.