IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Sir, let me deal with the major provisions of the Bill.

First, powers to deal with prohibited immigrants. Sir, clause 13 empowers the Controller of Immigration to compel an aircraft or vessel (or another aircraft or vessel of the same company) to take on board a prohibited immigrant which that aircraft or vessel had brought to Singapore. The powers include preventing an aircraft or vessel from leaving Singapore if its captain fails to comply.

Sir, why do we need these powers? It is because we have actually had instances where foreign airlines have brought passengers into Singapore en route to another country and having failed to proceed onwards, they had tried to dump them in Singapore. The current penalties for such contravention will be enhanced to a fine of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both. The amendment to section 31 enables the Controller to remove a prohibited immigrant to any port or place designated by the Controller.

With these amendments, we will be able to remove the prohibited immigrants more quickly and effectively.

Next, provisions requiring employers/harbourers of an illegal immigrant to screen the immigration status of such person. Sir, until a recent decision of the Chief Justice in February 1993, we have experienced considerable problems in prosecuting employers of illegal immigrants and overstayers. Under section 57(1)(e) of the Immigration Act, a person commits an offence if he employs an illegal immigrant or overstayer. In several cases, when an employer was charged with such an offence, he was able to get an acquittal by simply arguing that he was shown a copy of a work permit by the foreign worker, even though it turned out that the work permit was forged. In February this year, the Chief Justice in a High Court case of Naranjan Singh vs. Public Prosecutor, on appeal from the magistrate court, ruled that section 57(1)(e), read with section 57(8) of the Act, shifts to the offender the burden of proving that they did not know that the workers they employed were illegal immigrants. The Chief Justice said in his judgement that "to allow an employer to evade the section by shutting his eyes to the immigration or employment status of his foreign employee, would make proper control and enforcement impossible. It cannot be placing too onerous a duty upon employers in Singapore to require them to screen their foreign workers before employing them to ensure compliance with immigration policy and the law." As this is only a High Court decision, it is only binding on the lower courts. We therefore propose to amend the Immigration Act to provide expressly for this approach. This is the purport of clause 21(e) which adds new subsections (9) and (10) to section 57.

For consistency, the new law would also apply to harbourers of illegal immigrants and overstayers. The proposed section 57(9) and (10) seek to require a person charged with employing or harbouring an illegal immigrant or overstayer to prove that he had exercised due diligence by checking the passport or travel document of the illegal immigrant or overstayer and that after checking the passport or travel document, he has reasonable grounds to believe that the illegal immigrant or overstayer was in possession of a valid immigration pass or permit if his defence is that the illegal immigrant or overstayer had such a pass or permit.

Sir, we will always have foreigners coming here illegally to work so long as there are unscrupulous employers who believe that there are loopholes in the law in their favour. In fact, the Controller of Immigration has informed me that the problem of illegal immigrants and overstayers working illegally is resurfacing. A strong signal must be sent to these unscrupulous employers. The amendment will remove the inherent difficulty in prosecuting employers of illegal immigrants and overstayers.

Next, provisions which empower the Controller to deal with certain permanent residents. Sir, the Act currently does not give the Government adequate powers to deal with permanent residents (PRs) who, for example, have been convicted of offences in that it does not empower the Controller to impose additional conditions on the entry permits of such PRs. The vast majority of PRs are of course law-abiding and, in fact, only a handful of PRs are convicted of offences each year. But these amendments are necessary to provide Government with wider latitude in dealing with PRs who have come to adverse notice. Currently, we can either allow the PR to retain his status without any conditions or we must revoke the PR status of a PR who has been deemed to be a prohibited immigrant and expel him.

Although, as I said, the number of such PRs who commit offences or engage in undesirable activities is small, the Government's hands should not be tied. In some cases, it may be too harsh to revoke the PR status of a PR, especiall if he has family roots and ties here. The amendment in clause 5 will empower the Controller of Immigration to warn them and impose certain additional conditions on such PRs so that they need not be expelled if there is no need to. If these PRs breach the new conditions, their PR status can be revoked.

Finally, provisions concerning judicial review. Sir, the grant of PR or immigration facilities to a foreigner are essentially matters within the purview of the Government. Those decisions are based on immigration policies based on national interest. Clause 15 of the Bill inserts a new section 39A to clarify that the Courts cannot substitute their decisions for the Executive's decisions in matters relating to immigration unless it is on ground of non-compliance with any procedural requirements. The intention of this amendment is that the merits of the immigration decision, that is, whether it is right or wrong, cannot be reviewed. This is to avoid a situation where the Courts can frustrate Government's decision to expel aliens under the Act or other immigration decisions concerning aliens.

Illegal entry and overstaying are problems which affect many countries. Singapore is also faced with this problem. But we must have full powers to deal with such offenders and when they are apprehended, to prosecute them and expel them after they have served their punishment. In some cases where we have caught overstayers or illegal workers and we want to repatriate them, they have brought legal action or threatened to do so claiming they have a right to stay on for various reasons. We cannot allow this. In other countries like the United Kingdom, the Courts there have developed the doctrine of legitimate expectations of aliens and have deployed this doctrine to overturn some of the decisions of the Executive concerning aliens. It is our intention that this should not happen in Singapore.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Bedok GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill.

I would like to briefly comment on only two aspects of this Bill.

Firstly, section 57(1)(e). Sir, this section refers to the responsibility on persons harbouring or employing foreigners. While I agree with the spirit of this amendment, mainly that they must show due diligence by checking the passport, I would like to differentiate between friends and relatives on the one hand, and employment agencies and employers on the other. In the latter case, that is, employment agencies and employers, the client or the prospective employee will expect to have all his documents checked, including, of course, the passport. Therefore, there is no sensitivity involved. However, in the case of friends and relatives, asking for their passports and checking the passport for the date of expiry of stay may become a very sensitive issue. I hope that the Minister will advise his officers to exercise discretion in the case of friends and relatives. The Ministry could also assist those cases asking for an extension of stay by informing the head of the household of the expiry date of the stay.

Sir, next on the question of permanent residents. It has always been our policy, both economic and social, to welcome permanent residents who can contribute to the economic well-being of Singapore. As the economy matures and globalises, more foreigners will come. Some will find Singapore an attractive place to stay and apply for PR. Others may sink in deeper roots when they are married to Singaporeans. Some may decide to take up Singapore citizenship, while others may not want to for various reasons or are unable to do so. If, for some reasons, a PR contravenes the law, under existing provisions, the Controller would have to revoke the PR. This is a very drastic step, especially if the PR has a Singaporean spouse and children. I make this statement on the assumption that the offence is of a minor nature or a technical matter. I would expect that if it is a major offence, eg, murder or drug trafficking, their PR status will be revoked.

I agree with the Minister that the vast majority of PRs are responsible people and persons of good standing. I therefore welcome this amendment.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I need to address only the point that Dr Arthur Beng made about the new amendment in respect of harbouring illegal immigrants.

Let me assure him that the fear that he has is not one that we need be troubled by very much because, firstly, that is not the problem that Immigration has. The problem that Immigration has is really with those who are employed illegally by employers who in many cases are also the ones who give them food and shelter.

Secondly, if you look at the definition of the word "harbouring" in the Immigration Act, it means "to give food or shelter and includes acts of assisting a person in any way to evade apprehension". Therefore, Immigration and the Attorney-General's Chambers will really charge a person for the offence of harbouring only if there is some intentional act of providing food and shelter, in other words, with the knowledge that the recipient is an immigration offender, although there is a presumption clause to aid the prosecution.

The third point I want to make is that this particular amendment before us today, new subsections (9) and (10) to section 57, only applies where the accused person raises the defence that he had seen a work permit or pass. Why do we craft this amendment in this way? Because we have several cases where the prosecution lost in the courts where the employer, before the Chief Justice's decision, was successfully able to say in answer to the charge of illegal employment that his worker produced a document which was a work permit. But later on, it turned out that the work permit was forged. The Immigration's position is that that is not enough for an employer to discharge his onus. All he needs to do is to ask of the potential employee, "Let me have a look at the passport." And that will make it clear whether he has authority to stay in Singapore, whether that authority has expired, and so on and so forth. I thank him for his concern in any case. I will impress upon Immigration the point raised by Dr Arthur Beng.

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. S. Jayakumar].

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