IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Introduction: worsening situation

Since 1989, the Immigration Act was amended to raise the penalties for immigration offenders and their employers. Caning was introduced for illegal entry and overstaying by over 90 days. The situation improved for a while after the amendments. In recent years, it has worsened significantly. Last year, nearly 10,000 immigration offenders were arrested - double the number in 1988. The situation shows no signs of abating. In the first nine months of this year, 9,343 were arrested. The problem will grow bigger so long as there are unscrupulous employers willing to employ illegals.

Situation at construction sites

In particular, I am very concerned about the situation at construction sites. Police intelligence indicates that the majority of the immigration offenders arrested were here to work in construction sites. Construction sites were also used by immigration offenders for cover and shelter. Some of them were also involved in crime. The crime situation at construction sites has gone worse. In 1993, 77 foreigners were arrested for crimes at worksites. 31 or 40% of them were immigration offenders. In 1994, the number of arrests rose to 164 and immigration offenders constituted 60 or 36.5% of them. The crimes committed range from simple theft and robbery to the more serious offences like hurt and murder. In 1994 alone, there were 10 murder cases and 22 hurt cases at construction sites involving foreigners. Our crime rates and safety will be affected if we do not deal with this problem now.

Part of the reason for the worsening situation is the lax security at construction sites which allows unimpeded and free access to anyone. There is little or no access control and no system of identifying workers. Because of this, immigration offenders find it easy to take cover at construction sites. The multiple-layer nature of subcontracting practised in the construction industry compounds the problem. Under such a practice, the principal contractor sub-contracts specific jobs, eg, brick-laying, to a sub-contractor. This sub-contractor in turn sub-contracts all or part of this job to other small contractors and so on down the line. As a result, it is very difficult to link an immigration offender found at a site to a particular sub-contractor. This is compounded by the requirement in our current immigration laws that the immigration offender must be found in actual possession of tools or implements, before he can be presumed to be working at the site. It is all too easy for an immigration offender working at the site to thus dispose of any work tools. If a raid is conducted at night in the living quarters in a worksite, no tools would be found on the immigration offenders. All these add to the difficulties in securing convictions. For example, early this year, a joint operation by Police, Immigration and the Ministry of Labour's Labour Inspectorate was carried out at a construction site in Pulau Seraya. 39 immigration offenders were arrested. Of these, 22 admitted to working illegally while the rest denied it. Those who admitted working refused to disclose the particulars of their employers. As a result, no further action could be taken against the employers.

Principal or main contractors are responsible for overall management of the site and have control over all activities at the site. Therefore, they are best placed for implementing measures to keep out unauthorised persons, including immigration offenders, and to prevent crime through proper security control measures. During the opening of the new Tanah Merah Prison and Changi Women's Prison in April last year, I said that if contractors do not step up security at their worksites, we will have to legislate the security measures. In October last year, Police also issued an advisory note to all contractors on measures to tighten security at work sites. The Commissioner of Police repeated the warning in November 1994, following a pre-dawn fight at a construction site in the Alexandra area, where 19 foreign workers were arrested. From the Police's feedback, many construction sites have now put in place the recommended security measures. But there are still too many who have chosen to ignore the Police's advice. To ensure that the construction sites do not become havens for immigration offenders, my Ministry is left with no choice but to legislate these measures. Moral persuasion has not achieved results. More than adequate warning has already been given. New requirements for principal contractors

Sir, to deal with the problem of immigration offenders we have therefore taken a multi-pronged approach. First, this is done through clause 7 of the Immigration (Amendment) Bill which seeks to create a new section 57B to make it a legal requirement for principal or main contractors who have control of access of any worksite to carry out worksite access control measures to prevent unauthorised persons from entering construction sites. If any immigration offender is found at the worksite, the principal contractor will be held responsible. It would be presumed that he has control of access and he has knowingly allowed the immigration offender to enter or remain at the worksite. The principal contractor will be allowed to rebut the presumptions that he has knowingly allowed the immigration offenders to enter or remain at the worksite only if he has exercised due diligence to prevent immigration offenders from entering or remaining at the worksite. This means taking all reasonable measures to prevent any immigration offender from entering or remaining at the worksite and includes complying with prescribed security measures. These measures are similar to the measures recommended by the advisory note issued by the Police in October last year. Contractors who have been implementing these measures, therefore, need not worry about the new provisions in the Immigration Act.

Sir, if an immigration offender is found at the worksite, the principal contractor in charge of the worksite will face a fine of not less than $15,000 and not more than $30,000, or a term of imprisonment of not more than one year, or both. Repeat offenders are liable to receive double the penalty on the second conviction - that is, a fine of not less than $30,000 and not more than $60,000, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both.

Sir, the Minister for Labour will also be moving a similar amendment to the Employment of Foreign Workers Act to cover foreigners without work permits and found working at worksite. The approach of the amendments to both Acts has been harmonised with the common objective of strengthening the measures used to deter the employment of immigration offenders and illegal workers.

But let subcontractors also beware. This does not mean that they will be let off scot-free to employ immigration offenders. The Immigration Department will continue to prosecute any contractor, including subcontractors, under the existing provisions in the Immigration Act for employing immigration offenders.

Tightening existing provisions against employers

Sir, my Ministry has also taken the opportunity to tighten up the existing provisions against employers of immigration offenders in the following ways. First, clause 6(d) of the Bill seeks to re-enact section 57(8) to remove the requirement that an immigration offender must be caught in possession of tools before he can be presumed to be working at any premises. As I have said earlier, it is all too easy for an immigration offender to dispose of his tools during a raid. The amended section 57(8) will therefore facilitate prosecution of employers of immigration offenders by shifting the onus of proof to the employers once immigration offenders are found at their premises.

Sir, the definition of "employ" under section 2 of the Immigration Act is also amended by clause 2 of the Bill to remove the requirement that the prosecution must prove the existence of a contract or service or any payment before a person can be charged for employing an immigration offender. This is to cover the situation where the immigration offender claims that he is under probation or he is paid in kind other than in cash.

Secondly, the penalty for employing more than five immigration offenders is enhanced. This is done through clause 6(b) of the Bill which seeks to re-enact section 57(1A) to remove the requirement that the prosecution must prove that the employer of more than five immigration offenders has "actual knowledge" of their immigration status before he can be caned for employing them. This is necessary because in practice, unless the employer admits that he knew of the status of the immigration offender, it is almost impossible to prove that the employer is aware of the immigration offender's status. The penalty of caning should deter those employers who employ more than five immigration offenders.

Thirdly, to ensure that companies which committed immigration offences attracting mandatory caning or jail do not escape the heavier penalties, clause 6(c) of the Bill seeks to create a new section 57(2A) to provide for an alternate penalty of a fine for a "body corporate" or company which has committed an immigration offence punishable with mandatory jail or caning. So, for example, in a case where a company has been convicted of employing more than five immigration offenders, which carries mandatory jail and caning, the courts will, under the new section 57(2A), have the leeway of imposing a fine of not less than $50,000 and not more than $100,000, in lieu of caning or jail, on the company.

Fine tuning of penalties against immigration offenders

Mr Speaker, Sir, clauses 3 and 5 of the Immigration (Amendment) Bill seek to amend section 6(3)(a) and section 15(3)(b) respectively to deal with immigration offenders. Under section 6(3)(a) of the Immigration Act, the penalty for illegal entry is mandatory imprisonment of between three months and two years and not less than three strokes of the cane. Under section 15(3)(b) of the Immigration Act, the penalty for overstaying beyond 90 days is an imprisonment term of between three months and two years, and a minimum of three strokes of the cane. There is no fine. Clauses 3 and 5 of the Immigration (Amendment) Bill seek to amend section 6(3)(a) and section 15(3)(b) to remove the mandatory minimum three months' jail term and to cap the maximum imprisonment term for illegal entry and overstaying at six months. There are two reasons for this. First, we do not want these foreigners to clog up our jails. As at 30th September this year, our prison capacity was exceeded by more than 36%. Immigration offenders constituted more than half, ie, 67.4% to be exact, of the 2,787 foreign prisoners. Secondly, by freeing up the jails, we will be able to prosecute more immigration offenders who may otherwise have to be let off the hook due to the prisons' limited capacity. The mandatory caning provision will remain unchanged as caning has proved to be very effective; hardly any immigration offender who has been caned returns to Singapore. For persons who are not liable to be caned under our laws, that is, women and men above 50 years old, we have provided for them to be fined up to $6,000 instead.

Other amendments

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have also taken the opportunity to enhance the penalty under section 57(1)(iv) from a maximum fine of $2,000 to $4,000 and from six months' jail to one year's jail to deal with the increase in the number of offences of false representations under section 57(1)(f). The penalties for other offences listed under section 57(1)(iv) have also been raised to maintain parity with the new penalty under section 57(1)(f).

Mr Speaker, Sir, the problem of illegal immigrants and overstayers is a serious one. We cannot afford to allow the situation to persist and go out of hand. To ensure that the problem is effectively curtailed, we need the concerted efforts of all parties involved. If there is no demand for illegal workers because of strong deterrent laws, then they will not come. Worksites are the main areas where immigration offenders are found because the open nature of worksites makes it easy for them to find refuge. For this reason, we can deter immigration offenders at worksites by having good security and access control measures. This is one area where all contractors can play their part to complement the efforts of Government to tackle this problem. Members of the executive committee of the Singapore Contractors Association Ltd (SCAL) have been consulted twice this year and have indicated their support for the Government's efforts. SCAL appreciates the seriousness of the situation which compromises our safety and the need for tough measures.

I believe that the new legislation will go a long way in addressing the root of the problem - which is at the construction sites. Nevertheless, let me also send a warning signal to the other employers, who are thinking of employing immigration offenders, that the new section 57B, as drafted, has given the flexibility to enable the Minister to extend the provision to other workplaces, such as shipyards and factories, if the need arises.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Jalan Besar GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Amendment Bill.

Sir, the main concern here is: are we to turn a blind eye and tolerate the lawlessness taking place at worksites accommodating foreign workers? I am sure the answer is surely not, as we have been told of the alarming statistics of serious crimes by the Minister a short while ago.

Sir, it is apparent that existing legislation, though stringent, is still inadequate to deal with such offences which keep on increasing.

This Amendment Bill is, indeed, more than a welcome relief to all law-abiding Singaporeans as it serves to deal with such problems more effectively by placing the accountability on employers to ensure that law and order are maintained at their worksites. The stiffer penalties provided for will be a strong deterrent to force employers and main contractors to put up better security and access control measures in order to stamp out lawlessness at worksites.

In this connection, Sir, may I ask the Minister whether the Police is satisfied with the present standard of security implemented at the worksites and what steps are being contemplated to monitor it to ensure that it is being tightened up to meet the enhanced requirements.

Sir, once again, I support the Bill.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I thank the Member for his support of the Bill. As I said earlier, many contractors have taken heed of the Police's advice issued last year. Many still have not, and I believe that they will do so once the Bill is put in place. And for those who are still contemplating whether or not they want to employ immigration offenders, I would strongly advise them that they should take the necessary measures before the law catches up on them.

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. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

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