RECOVERY OF MONIES BY FOREIGN WORKERS FROM EMPLOYERS (Guidelines for Immigration Department)

Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether any directions or guidelines have been given to the Immigration Department on the position of foreign workers who have commenced proceedings in the courts against their employers to recover monies lawfully due to them from their employers.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Sir, if a foreign worker is pursuing a civil suit of any nature in Singapore and his work permit meanwhile has expired or is cancelled, the Immigration Department could, at his request, place him on a Special Pass on a short-term basis. This is to enable him to make the necessary arrangements for the legal proceedings. Foreign workers cannot be allowed to stay in Singapore indefinitely for the purpose of pursuing their civil suits.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Is the Minister aware of two cases by the names of Ranganathan Adaranti Vellar and Ramasamy Shanmugam for claims against their employer for arrears of wages which were withheld? The case was fixed for court hearing on 21st February 1995 but the Immigration Department deported the workers concerned on 10th February 1995. As a result, they could not proceed with their claims in the court. I think this is not fair to the workers concerned. What is the Minister's answer to that?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the answer is really very simple. I have by coincidence looked up the two cases mentioned by Mr Low and by coincidence I have also discovered that these two persons were represented by Mr J B Jeyaretnam and Mr Jeyaretnam is the Secretary-General of the Workers Party. I think Mr Jeyaretnam knows full well of the circumstances why these foreign workers could not be allowed to stay in Singapore.

These foreign workers had placed a claim against their employer with the Labour Ministry some time in October 1994. Eventually, they withdrew their claim and pursued a civil claim against the employer. From November to 10th February 1995, which was the last day given to them to settle their claim, they have almost three months to settle the claim. So when the Immigration Department told these workers they could remain here on short-term Special Passes they should really make full use of the time to settle the claim and, if they could not, they would have to go back. We have no choice but to ask them to go back because we cannot allow foreign workers to remain here indefinitely to pursue their civil claim. We do not know how long it will take the claim to be settled or if it can be settled at all. If the case drags on for a long time, does it mean that these workers will be here without jobs or maybe working illegally? In fact, according to what I know, the following is the case.

Mr Jeyaretnam's staff, in a sworn affidavit to the court, said that:

"These workers have not been in receipt of any income. They are unable to work in Singapore and have informed Mr Jeyaretnam that they are suffering extreme financial hardship, seeking accommodation with other workers who have come from India. They on their part are desirous of returning to India because of the difficulty they have here following the cancellation of their work permit."

This means, in the first place, these workers have no means to support or sustain themselves. Secondly, they want to go back. If they have no means to support or sustain themselves, then I do not think they should stay here. That does not mean that they cannot pursue their claim. They can always come back on the date when the court decides to hear the case and pursue the claim. If they indeed have a good claim, then their counsel can ask for cost from the employer and the cost will pay for their stay here and for the air-fare back here.

It is quite fair to them that they should be asked to go back, otherwise Singapore will be saddled with many of these workers who are unable to work and indeed we have several hundred foreign workers or foreigners who have overstayed and worked illegally in Singapore. Every month, the Immigration Department, the Police and the Work Permit Department arrest several hundreds of them for overstaying or illegal entry. For those workers who are working here, if the employers are unable to carry on employing them and they cannot survive here on their own, then they should rightfully go back.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, my understanding is that the case was fixed for hearing on 21st February 1995 and the request was made to the Immigration Department to allow the workers to stay until the case was heard in court. It was for about 10 days in which the pass could be granted. Would the Minister consider, in future cases where the workers have a rightful claim of legal proceedings in court, allowing them to stay until the case is concluded provided their counsel undertakes to proceed with the case soonest possible?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I am really disappointed that Mr Low has not been fully apprised of the facts of the case. He just told us that his understanding is that the hearing of the case was on 21st February 1995. From what I know, the hearing on 21st February was not a hearing of the merits of the case. It was a preliminary hearing, in other words, the lawyers and the company get together in court to fix a date for the trial. It is not a hearing. That is my first disappointment that he has not been informed of the correct facts.

The second disappointment is that Mr Low is pursuing a case of his party's boss. When his party's boss fails to take up a case like this or is unable to pursue a case for his client, he has made use of this Parliamentary proceeding to pursue his private interest. I am really disappointed with that.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, if the counsel is the Secretary-General of the Workers Party, it does not mean that Mr Low has got any interest in the case. May I ask the Minister whether it is fair of him to mention that the counsel is the Secretary-General of a party in which Mr Low is a party member?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I concede that Mr Low does not have a pecuniary interest to declare. I concede that. But at the same time Mr Low knows, and I know, that this case was represented by Mr Jeyaretnam and Mr Jeyaretnam is his party's boss. I think at least he should have the decency to tell us that this case was pursued by his party's boss who had failed with the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I beg to differ with the Minister. In this particular case, he is merely asking a Question on behalf of two foreign workers. There is no indication that he is asking on behalf of Mr Jeyaretnam who is the Secretary-General of his party and therefore ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, what is your question? Can you ask your question?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sorry. Is the Minister fair in mentioning all these background facts when, on the face of his Question, there is no connection whatsoever?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: In fact, I was not about to mention Mr Jeyaretnam until Mr Low mentioned the names of these two foreign workers. There is a direct connection. Mr Jeyaretnam is the counsel for these two persons that Mr Low mentioned, and that is a fact. I am only stating a fact that Mr Jeyaretnam is the Secretary-General of the party which Mr Low belongs. I think it is a very fair statement that people ought to know how this case came about. We are not talking about general policy. If we are talking about general policy I would reply to him on a question of general policy and the general policy of the Immigration Department is, yes, we will give reasonable time to any foreign worker who has a dispute with his employer to pursue his civil claim. I think two or three months is a reasonable time. If the worker cannot support himself here, then I think he should go home first and his counsel can still pursue his claim here until he is able to come back again. Nobody is denied any right to pursue any claim, whether it is civil or whatever it is, so long as he can support himself here. If he cannot, and he has no means to support himself, then he cannot remain here.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Is the Minister unaware that it is specifically stated in the affidavit filed by the two workers that they are in financial difficulties and they are unable to come back to fight their case if they return home? That is why they have asked for an extension.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I think Mr Chiam has missed my point. The extension up to 21st February does no good to the workers, because 21st February is only for fixing a date of hearing. If the hearing is fixed, say, for June, are we saying that they be allowed to remain until June and meanwhile they would be unemployed or employed illegally and become like those illegal workers whom we will arrest and be caned?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Would the Minister be so sure that the court would not give them an early date? How can he decide on behalf of the courts? They might give a date one week ahead for the hearing.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Let me correct one remark. Illegal workers do not get caned. But if they are overstayers, they would be caned. I do not know whether the court would give them an early hearing or not. What Mr Chiam has said is purely speculation and I am also hypothesizing that if the court gives them a hearing date in June, what happens to the workers here in the meanwhile. So I think it is only fair that they go back first.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, does the Minister agree that foreign workers, who have also made a contribution to our economy, should not be prejudiced by the action or regulation of the Immigration Department to pursue a legal claim against their employers?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: No one is being prejudiced. I am not saying that they have no right to pursue a civil claim. They can, and they should if they have a rightful claim. But what I am saying is that after having given them a reasonable period to settle their claim and they cannot do so, and they cannot sustain themselves, then they should go home first. Meanwhile, when they get a hearing date, they can come back again. And when they succeed, they will be able to get all the costs from the employer.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Does the Minister agree that, in the first place, these workers already have financial problems and they will not be able to come back to Singapore again to pursue their claims? So how does the case proceed in court if they are sent back? I suppose they cannot even afford an air ticket to come back again.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: No, as the Member said, the defence counsel or the lawyer can give an undertaking to bring these people back to pursue the claim and get the money for them if they succeed in their claim. It is not the responsibility of the Immigration Department to keep these people here. Neither is it our business to deny any foreign worker from pursuing any claim. We take a neutral position on this. But if he cannot live here because he has no money, then he will become an illegal worker and, worse still, he might commit a crime. What happens if he commits a crime whilst here? I have the responsibility in making sure that people who are here have a legitimate interest to remain here and I would not allow people who have no legitimate reason to remain here to stay here and eventually get into problems. I think it is in our interest to protect them by sending them back.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): Point of clarification, Sir. Can Mr Low tell this House whether the two foreign workers concerned did personally approach him for assistance?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, the workers concerned did not approach me personally for assistance. I am asking this Question for the purpose of clarification from the Minister concerned. As Singapore relies quite heavily on foreign workers, I think it is only fair that we should not in any way prejudice their cases. That is why I have asked the Question.

There are two more supplementary questions, Sir. One is whether the Minister will consider allowing foreign workers, who have a case in court and their legal counsel has undertaken to proceed with the case soonest possible to fix a hearing date, to at least complete their case before they are being sent back? The Minister also mentioned just now that if the Immigration Department should grant them the Special Pass to stay here, they might commit crimes or become illegal workers. Does the Minister agree that we should not pre-empt or be prejudiced against these workers that they might commit crimes or work illegally the moment they remain in Singapore? I think it may not be a fair statement to make against foreign workers who are working here and who are making a contribution to our economy.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes, we will allow them to stay provided we know the date of hearing of the trial. But if it is only for setting a date for the trial, then we actually do not know how long that it is going to take. So we must be reasonable about this. I am not jumping into conclusion that every foreign worker who overstays or who works here and has a dispute with the employer will commit crime. No, I am not. But neither am I so sanguine as Mr Low that these workers will not get into trouble.

Let me disclose that in another case, represented by Mr Jeyaretnam, which concerned seven other Indian workers, the Immigration Department gave them Special Passes up to 9th March, or thereabout, to settle their case. During that process, one had already absconded. What has happened to the absconded Indian worker? I do not know. He might have gone back, or he might have smuggled himself out. He might still be here. He might be working illegally. He might have committed a crime. So I cannot be so sanguine as Mr Low to presume that all foreign workers are of good behaviour. Neither am I saying that all foreign workers commit crimes. But here I have an instance where a worker, given a Special Pass to remain here to pursue a civil case, had absconded. No amount of undertaking by any counsel can ensure that his client will not get into trouble.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, may I know from the Minister whether, if a case is confirmed for hearing, the worker concerned will be allowed to stay in Singapore till the case is heard and completed?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: We have to know when the hearing date is. If, for example, on 21st February, the hearing date is fixed for 1st May, I would be very reluctant to say that he can remain here for another three months and in the meanwhile he has nothing to feed himself. During this time what will happen to the foreign worker? Will the defence counsel say, "I will feed him and I will ensure that he will not work illegally." I think that will be difficult. But if, on 21st February, the court has fixed the hearing for, say, 28th February, or 3rd March, or some reasonable period, yes, I will be very sympathetic.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Just a clarification from the Minister. The Minister has said that one of the nine foreign workers who sought legal help from Mr Jeyaretnam had absconded. Can the Minister tell this House how many workers had absconded who were not involved in any legal cases?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, if the Minister is expected to keep such data in his head, I think there will be a lot of things for him to remember. But I remember this particular case because I checked it up. I asked why is there an interest in this case, and it has come to my attention that there are indeed two such cases; one case with five workers, the other with seven workers, not nine, and one of whom had absconded.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Does the Minister not agree with me that those foreign workers who are not even involved in illegal cases have absconded? It is not fair for him to point out that just because Mr Jeyaretnam acted for one who had absconded and therefore the extension of time should not be allowed.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I think Mr Chiam hits the point correctly. Indeed there are workers who will abscond even when they are working legally and this is all the more reason for the Immigration Department to be very strict. It just proves my point.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I come back to this particular case which Mr Jeyaretnam is doing. The Minister says that on 21st February the court was supposed to fix a date for hearing and they were asked to leave Singapore 10 days before 21st February. Is his Ministry not being neutral? The Ministry should have at least waited until the result of the hearing on 21st February before making a decision because the court could, in fact, give a hearing date the next day.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I do not agree with Mr Chiam because the Immigration Department has been very patient. It has given these workers a lot of time. Since the last employment, they were allowed to remain here for three months. Three months is a reasonable period. 12.55 pm