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." Illegal Immigrant Problem

Sir, I shall first touch on the illegal immigrant problem and the proposed enhancement of penalties for some of the existing immigration offences.

Singapore is a small country with limited resources. The presence of illegal immigrants will pose a serious social and security problem, and compromise the safety and security of Singaporeans. We have therefore taken, and will continue to take, a tough stand against all immigration offenders - be they illegal immigrants, their smugglers, overstayers, or the harbourers and employers of such people - especially given the current regional economic situation.

Since early this year, the Police Coast Guard (PCG) has stepped up patrols in our waters to deter and arrest illegal immigrants. The Police and Singapore Immigration and Registration (SIR) have also raided hideouts and haunts in Singapore to flush out immigration offenders. Joint raids were also conducted with the Ministry of Manpower in the service and manufacturing sectors, for example, at food courts, hawker centres and factories. These raids have resulted in the arrests of 9,449 illegal immigrants and 5,425 overstayers in the first seven months of 1998 alone, compared to 7,599 illegal immigrants and 6,314 overstayers for the whole of 1997.

These enforcement measures must be backed up by tough laws and strict penalties for those who have committed offences. My Ministry has undertaken a comprehensive review of the penalties for the various types of immigration offences. While we found existing penalties to be generally adequate, the penalties for some offences need to be enhanced to enable us to effectively deal with the illegal immigrant problem. The Immigration Act has to be amended to give effect to these enhanced penalties.

Enhanced Penalties

(i) Attempted illegal entry and departure

Currently, attempted illegal entry and departure attract penalties which are less severe than those for actual illegal entry and departure. While the penalty for illegal entry is a maximum six months' jail and mandatory caning of a minimum three strokes, the penalty for the attempted illegal entry offence is imprisonment of between three months and two years and a fine of $4,000, but no caning. For illegal departure, the penalty is a maximum $2,000 fine and six months' jail, while the penalty for attempted illegal departure is a maximum $2,000 fine and three months' jail.

My Ministry proposes to equate the penalties for attempted illegal entry or departure to the penalties for illegal entry or departure respectively because there is no reason to treat an unsuccessful act of illegal entry or departure more leniently than a successful one. Clauses 3 and 4(a) of the Bill will amend sections 5 and 6 to make attempted illegal entry and attempted illegal departure punishable with the same penalties as illegal entry and illegal departure.

(ii) Abetment of illegal entry

Smugglers of illegal immigrants bring the illegal immigration problem to Singapore and therefore have to be dealt with severely. Currently, those convicted of engaging in the business of conveying prohibited immigrants into Singapore can be jailed between two and five years and caned a mandatory minimum of three strokes. Although this penalty is adequately severe, in reality, many traffickers, boatmen and runners caught smuggling illegal immigrants escape punishment under this section. Instead, they are charged with abetment of illegal entry. This is because it is, in practice, difficult to obtain evidence showing that the traffickers have engaged in the business of smuggling illegal immigrants. As abettors, they are liable to be jailed between six months and two years and fined up to $6,000, but do not receive corporal punishment.

Let me relate an actual example to illustrate the point I am making. On 7th May 1998 at 3.30 am, Police Coast Guard intercepted a fast-moving sampan, fitted with a 200 hp outboard engine, at sea off Changi while it was proceeding from Batam towards Pulau Tekong. There were two boat operators and three passengers in the sampan. None of them possessed valid travel documents and they were all arrested. The two boat operators were charged as abettors, and sentenced to seven months' imprisonment each. The three passengers were charged for attempting to enter Singapore illegally, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment each.

The two boat operators could not be charged as traffickers because we did not have adequate proof that they were engaged in the business of conveying illegal immigrants to Singapore. Under our proposal to equate the penalty for attempted illegal entry to the penalty for illegal entry, caning for attempted illegal entry will become mandatory for the passengers. But it is absurd that the passengers are caned under the proposed amendments while those who facilitated their illegal entry, ie, the boat operators, are not.

It is more effective to tackle the problem at source, and deter the conveyance of illegal immigrants to Singapore altogether. Besides, these so-called "abettors" are as guilty in bringing in illegal immigrants as those convicted as smugglers. Therefore, deterrent penalties have to be imposed. To ensure that these smugglers do not escape the corporal punishment meted out to those convicted of trafficking in illegal immigrants, we propose that the penalty for abetment of illegal entry be amended to include mandatory caning. Clauses 11(b) and (d) of the Bill amend section 57(1) of the Act to provide that abettors of illegal entry under section 6 will be punished with a mandatory minimum of three strokes of the cane, in addition to the existing penalty of between six months and two years' jail.

(iii) Employment of immigration offenders

Employers of immigration offenders should also be severely dealt with. This is because if employers do not offer them jobs, illegal immigrants will not be attracted to come to Singapore.

Currently, employers of more than five immigration offenders can be sentenced to between six months and two years' jail, fined not exceeding $6,000 and caned. Clause 11(c) of the Bill amends section 57(1B) of the Act to increase the maximum fine for employers of more than five immigration offenders who cannot be caned because they are females or more than 50 years old from $6,000 to $10,000.

Corporate bodies which employ immigration offenders are fined between $50,000 and $100,000 in lieu of mandatory jail sentences or caning on conviction. In addition, an officer of the company who approves the employment is personally liable to be prosecuted for the offence of employing immigration offenders. He is liable, on conviction, to the same penalties for employing immigration offenders. Clause 11(f) amends section 57(2A) to increase the default fines in lieu of mandatory jail or caning for corporate bodies convicted of employing immigration offenders to between $100,000 and $200,000 to maintain the deterrent effect.

Rebuttable Presumption for Attempted Illegal Entry

Let me now turn to the proposed introduction of a presumption clause for attempted illegal entry under section 6 of the Immigration Act. Illegal immigrants arriving by sea and who are caught in our territorial waters before they disembark from their vessels are not considered to have "entered" Singapore within the meaning of the current provisions in the Act. Although they can be charged with attempted illegal entry, there is a problem of proof of intent as the illegal immigrant, when caught, usually claims that he has no intention to enter Singapore. Added to this is the problem created by the right of transit under international law. These illegal immigrants often claim that they are exercising their right of transit through Singapore waters as a legal defence. Short of a confession, there is often no way to rebut their claim. By relying on such a defence, the illegal immigrants can create a reasonable doubt as to whether they had intended to enter Singapore illegally. Such evidential difficulties have made it difficult for the Police to prove such cases beyond a reasonable doubt as required by law and to successfully prosecute some of these illegal immigrants in the past.

To deal more effectively with similar cases, my Ministry proposes to introduce a presumption clause in the Act so that any foreigner fitting the profile of an illegal immigrant found in our port waters will be presumed to be attempting to enter Singapore illegally if -

(a) he does not carry any valid travel document; or

(b) he has no visible means of subsistence, eg. inadequate funds or resources for a person's basic upkeep for a week's stay in Singapore; or

(c) he has taken precautions to conceal his identity or presence from our Police or Immigration officers, eg. by lying low in the boats or by travelling at night without a light.

Clause 4(b) of the Bill amends section 6 of the Act to insert subsections (4) and (5) to provide for this presumption clause. The presumption will assist the prosecution by putting the onus on the accused to satisfy the Court that it is more probable than not that he was not attempting to enter Singapore, which is a heavier burden than merely raising a reasonable doubt that he was attempting to enter Singapore.

Let me illustrate how the presumption clause will be used with an example. On 24th February this year at 2.30 in the morning, the Police Coast Guard (PCG) detected a motorised sampan heading from Batam towards Singapore. PCG intercepted the sampan at the sea off Changi after a short chase. It found 10 passengers and two boat operators in the sampan. They carried with them small amounts of cash in rupiah and ringgit, and did not possess any valid travel documents. They also tried to lie low to escape detection by PCG. The boat operators and the passengers were successfully prosecuted in this case. But the onus was on the prosecution to adduce the necessary evidence to prove a prima facie case to the court that these accused persons had attempted to enter Singapore illegally. This was despite it being patently clear what the intentions of the boat operators and their passengers were. On the other hand, once the presumption clause is inserted in the law, the burden of proof would then fall on the accused persons to produce evidence to satisfy the Court that it is more probable than not that they were not attempting to enter Singapore illegally.

Proposed Identification Card for Foreign Workers

Let me now turn to the amendments which are necessary for the implementation of the proposed identification card for foreign workers. Currently, a work permit holder is issued a Work Permit, with the immigration Disembarkation/Embarkation pass incorporated on the reverse side to show that he had entered Singapore through legal channels. In addition, a Visit Pass showing the permitted duration of stay granted by the Controller of Immigration is endorsed in the passport. To prevent the worker from absconding, it is common practice for the employers to hold on to the worker's passport and work permit card, leaving the worker with only a photocopy of his work permit card.

However, this practice makes it difficult for enforcement agencies to identify whether a foreigner is a legitimate worker or an illegal immigrant. Photocopies are usually of poor quality, and they can be easily forged. The current work permit card also does not capture the fingerprints of the holder, thus making it difficult for enforcement agencies to conclusively identify that the person carrying the work permit card is actually the person identified in the card. In addition, it does not have adequate security features to prevent forgery.

To address these shortcomings, my Ministry and the Manpower Ministry will be jointly implementing a new identification card for foreign workers, which will combine the current work permit card, the Disembarkation/Embarkation card and the visit pass. It will contain enhanced security features, including the fingerprint of the foreign worker, and an expiry date that will coincide with the expiry of the work permit and visit pass. Not only will this new identification card reduce the likelihood of forgery, fingerprint records will also allow our enforcement agencies to more conclusively identify the card-holder. The proposed identification card will be implemented in phases, commencing from the end of this year. More details will be released in due course.

Clause 10 of the Bill amends section 55(1) of the Immigration Act to provide for the Minister to make new regulations pertaining to the recording, storage and retrieval of the fingerprints, including thumbprints, for the proposed identification card for the foreign workers. These regulations would also empower law enforcement agencies when conducting raids to demand finger and thumb prints from persons holding these new identity cards for verification purposes. Since the visit pass for work permit holders would no longer be endorsed in the passport, clause 11(e) will amend section 57 of the Act to require an employer or harbourer of an immigration offender to prove that he had exercised due diligence by checking the original pass (which will now be incorporated into the identification card for work permit holders) and ascertaining that the holder of the passport is the person named in the pass or permit, before he could rely on the holder's possession of the visit pass as a legal defence that he did not knowingly employ or harbour an immigration offender.

Other Amendments

Sir, this Amendment Bill also proposes other amendments to facilitate the enforcement actions of Immigration and Police officers.

First, the Immigration Act currently only empowers the Controller of Immigration to require those seeking to enter Singapore and those applying for passes and permits to submit to medical examinations as a condition for issuing the pass or permit. However, the Controller of Immigration is not empowered to require those who are already holding valid passes and permits to undergo medical examination.

According to the Ministry of Health's statistics, since 1993, more than 2,000 foreigners living and working in Singapore have been found to be HIV-positive. Their illnesses were detected when they fell ill or when they applied to purchase insurance policies or when they applied to renew their passes and permits. Currently, only new PR and work permit applicants, and work permit holders applying to renew their work permits are required to undergo the medical screening before their applications are approved. From early next year, employment pass and other long-term immigration pass holders will be required to undergo medical examination before these passes are issued to them. The extension of the medical screening to these groups of foreigners will help to keep out foreigners who are a potential threat to our public health. More details will be announced later.

Clause 7 of the Bill will amend section 29 of the Act to empower the Controller of Immigration to require holders of entry permits and passes to undergo medical examination at any time, and for the medical records to be disclosed to the Controller of Immigration. Those holders of entry permits and passes who refuse to undergo such medical examination can be fined a maximum of $2,000 and imprisoned up to six months, and have their passes revoked.

The amendment is necessary so that the Controller can have access to medical information, which will facilitate him in identifying and repatriating foreigners with infectious diseases who are in Singapore. The proposed access to medical information for the Controller will not be confined to infectious diseases alone. It will also apply to other medical conditions, such as mental illnesses, insofar as a foreigner may be a danger to society as a result of his medical condition.

Secondly, section 49(1) of the Immigration Act currently only empowers the Controller of Immigration or any immigration officer authorised by him to seize vessels or vehicles below 76 tonnes used in the commission of any immigration offence. Clause 9 will repeal and re-enact section 49(1) of the Act to empower any Police officer authorised by a Deputy Commissioner of Police to perform the same function. This is aimed at enhancing Police's operational efficiency as the Police Coast Guard has been tasked to police our territorial waters and deal with illegal immigrants attempting to enter by sea. In practice, the decision to seize such a vessel is now handled by the Police and it is necessary for Police officers to be similarly empowered to authorise such seizures, thus avoiding any unnecessary delay in handling such cases.

Clause 9 also amends section 49(1) to make it clear that the Court's power to forfeit a vessel or vehicle under the section may be invoked notwithstanding that no person has been charged. This latter amendment is necessary as Police had encountered cases where vessels or vehicles were seized but the passengers and operators evaded arrest and could not be charged. On 3rd March this year, at 2.30 am, for example, a speedboat carrying suspected illegal immigrants was pursued by a PCG patrol craft in the Johor Bahru Straits and the two vessels subsequently collided. The five persons on board the speedboat were seen jumping into the sea and swimming towards Tanjong Murai shore, which is next to Lim Chu Kang Road and the Murai Reservoir, before they escaped into the darkness. Although the speedboat was seized and towed back by PCG, it had to be treated as unclaimed property and could not be forfeited because no one was charged.

Thirdly, clause 5 will amend section 8(1) of the Act to clarify the law relating to a prohibited immigrant by making it clear that a foreigner who is a member of any of the prohibited classes specified in subsection (3) is a prohibited immigrant within the meaning of the section. Such prohibited classes include persons with mental illness or infectious diseases, and those who are prostitutes, vagrants and beggars. In addition, the Controller can deem any other foreigner who in the opinion of the Controller is a member of any of the prohibited classes, to be a prohibited immigrant. Clause 8(b) seeks to amend section 8(3) to explicitly list anyone with the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome or infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus to be a prohibited immigrant and liable to be denied entry or repatriated. Clause 8 will amend section 38 to create a new subsection (2) to empower an immigration officer to exercise the powers of a Police officer under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68) in relation to investigating seizable offences. This is necessary to ensure that the immigration officers are given sufficient investigation powers to carry out their duties under the Act.

Conclusion

Sir, ensuring that we properly manage the inflow, presence and outflow of a large pool of foreign visitors and workers in Singapore, be they legal or illegal, is one of the Ministry of Home Affairs' greatest challenges. In managing this foreign population, we need to strike a fine balance between our economic objectives and ensuring that we do not compromise the sense of safety and security of Singaporeans. Since the Immigration Act was last amended in 1995, our operating environment has changed significantly. The proposals that I have presented today are necessary to ensure that the Act remains relevant to our needs, and will help to make Singapore a safer and more secure home for all Singaporeans.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Tay Beng Chuan (Nominated Member): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome this Amendment Bill introduced by the Minister for Home Affairs to tighten the control of illegal immigrants, in order to maintain peace and order in Singapore. However, I wish to take this opportunity to urge the Government to seriously consider relaxing the restrictions on bona fide tourists who come to Singapore through legal channels, particularly the tourists from China.

Sir, since the start of the Asian currency crisis, tourist arrivals from our traditional sources such as Japan, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have dropped substantially owing to the internal economic difficulties of these countries. The tourism industry has suffered gravely. Statistics announced by the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) recently revealed that during the first seven months of this year, tourist arrivals have dropped to just 3,610,495, a drop of 17.6% as compared to the 4,381,664 for the same period last year.

In the meantime, the China market seems to be showing excellent potential. According to the STB, China is among one of Singapore's top 12 sources of inbound tourists. From the 11th ranking in 1996, it has gone up to the 10th ranking last year, and in the first seven months of this year, it has risen to the 9th ranking, with a total of 163,745 visitors, an increase of 13% from the same period last year. With the national income growing all the time, more and more people from China will have the means to go on oversea tours. Because of the geographical and human affinities between the two countries, Singapore has become one of their most popular tour destinations. On this account, I believe that given more encouragement, the number of tourists coming from China to Singapore will increase by leaps and bounds. This will help to stimulate the dispirited tourism industry in Singapore, and can accelerate the recovery of the service and retail industries.

Mr Speaker, Sir, unfortunately, since the implementation of the new tourist visa regulations for Chinese visitors in 1996 by the Singapore Immigration Department, tourists from China are no longer entitled to the 48-hour visa-free stay in Singapore. To make things worse, the authority requires the travel agents in Singapore to furnish a $1,000 security deposit for each Chinese tourist coming to Singapore when they apply for a 96-hour visa to stay in Singapore. This has resulted in the loss of many potential visitors from China, and moreover gives the mistaken signal that they are not welcomed in Singapore. This misunderstanding is certainly detrimental to the development of long-term bilateral relations between Singapore and China.

Sir, if the $1,000 security deposit is meant to prevent Chinese visitors from overstaying or absconding, then it is not practical at all. For this very small number of black sheep who are prepared to flout the law, this $1,000 means nothing to them. It does not serve any deterrent effect at all. Why are we knocking out everybody with one sweeping blow just because there are a couple of black sheep in the flock?

At the moment, the Immigration Department takes about 14 days to process a visa application for a visitor from China. After obtaining the original copy of the visa, the travel agent will first of all fax a copy of this visa to its counterpart in China, and then send the original copy over to China by courier service. The whole process, from the time of submission of the application to the time the original visa is received by the travel agent in China, takes about one whole month. If we compare this standard of service to the high speed and efficiency of the checkpoint at Changi Airport, there is indeed a whole world of difference!

On the other hand, faced with stiff competition, the travel agents normally will have to dig into their own pockets to furnish upfront the $1,000 security deposit for each of the tourists from China when they apply for their visas. Let us make a simple calculation. Singapore receives about 250,000 visitors from China each year, or an average of 20,000 per month. So at $1,000 per visitor, the travel industry has to activate $20 million of their capital each month as security deposit for their Chinese visitors. Although the Immigration Department has made some administrative adjustment to reduce the amount of the security deposit by half, with effect from the 1st of this month, the revised amount still stands at $10 million. Now, with an increasing number of Chinese tourists visiting Singapore, the huge amount of bank guarantees "stuck" with the security deposits will certainly affect the cash-flow and business operations of the travel industry. In this present time of economic difficulty, this measure adopted by the Immigration Department is really rubbing salt into the wounds of the travel industry.

Presently, only government officials from China are exempted from visa requirement for up to 48 hours' stay in Singapore. But the period of 48 hours is apparently too short. When the Chinese government officials come to Singapore, apart from official duties, they also hope to take the opportunity to spend some time touring Singapore. Some of these government officials approached the local travel agents to assist in applying for extension of their stay in Singapore. But there was nothing the travel agents could do to assist them. From the business point of view, this is a great pity because business is brought right up to their door-step. Yet, they could not benefit from it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since Singapore wants to develop itself into an international metropolis, it should have the magnanimity and openness of an international metropolis. As such, I hope that the Ministry of Home Affairs would reconsider this matter and grant visitors from China the facilities of obtaining a visa on arrival, or even to exempt them from the visa requirement. In the meantime, may I suggest that the Immigration Department remove the requirement for travel agents to furnish a $1,000 security deposit for each visitor from China.

Of course, some people may say that since Singapore citizens are required to apply for a Chinese visa to enter China, then the Singapore Government has to adopt a reciprocal arrangement for all PRC nationals to have a Singapore visa to enter Singapore. In my view, as an open metropolis, Singapore does not need to conduct itself in this manner. Moreover, unilateral waiver of visa is not without precedence in Singapore. As we all know, Singapore citizens need to have an American visa to enter the United States, but US citizens do not require a visa to come to Singapore. Since the Immigration Department can allow US citizens to enter Singapore without a visa, I feel they should also accord a similar privilege to PRC nationals. Otherwise, this may create a misunderstanding that Singapore is adopting double standards in dealing with the entries of Chinese and US citizens to Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Bill.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: I am obliged to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity.

Sir, having heard my friend, Mr Tay, I would just add, before I come to the Bill proper, another concern. I have known of a case, a year ago, where the father, a PR, was working in Singapore and his son wanted to visit him, and he was required to pay a surety bond of $5,000. He could not get the visa in India. So the father had to make the application. Of course, when I took up this matter with the Immigration Department, they tried to console him and me by saying that this was because we have such a large flow of people coming here. I can understand the problem, Sir, but we must be selective. We must look at the genuine cases, like those people who have family ties in Singapore. A visit of two weeks will do whoever is being visited some good rather than harm.

Mr Speaker, Sir, having listened to the Minister, I must say that he has given all the details and he has given this House the reason why this Bill is necessary. One of the earliest laws that Singapore had was the Immigration law in one form or another. Sir, I will not deal with the Bill clause by clause, as the Minister has amply dealt with them. I am in support of most of the provisions, especially those which deal with higher punishments. I think it is high time we enhanced the penalties because, despite an amendment to the law some time ago, there is, as the Minister has pointed out, an increase in both illegal immigrants and overstayers. Members may wonder whether the increase in punishment will deter. Certainly, the illegal immigrants will have to think twice.

Another thing which I had spoken earlier in this House is this. Our missions abroad have also to carry the task of informing the public there that anybody who flouts the law in Singapore will be severely dealt with.

Sir, one area which has been of some concern to lawyers would be the question of presumption. It is not something new. It has been in our law and I think we should have it because unless we have this presumption, we are going to have difficulty in enforcement. In any case, I would like to assure the Members of this House and the public at large that the presumption can always be rebutted. It is for the person who is charged to disprove. It does not make him guilty straightaway. So I would say that it is timely and we should have it, especially in this law, as the Minister has graphically pointed out the difficulties our Coast Guard and Immigration officers have to face.

Sir, other than our Malay community, we are basically immigrant people. We will have immigrants and we encourage them to come here. We are encouraging talents to come here, as the Prime Minister has pointed out in his National Day Rally Speech. But at the same time, we must keep a check and balance whom we want to welcome in Singapore. Although it would be out of point, I would like to request the Minister to consider getting fast speed boats and things like that so that our coastal areas can be amply guarded.

Sir, another area which I am also concerned, and I think the Minister has pointed out, is people who pose danger to public health. My concern is on a very small but very important area. We do not want the flesh trade in Singapore to increase. This happens in most countries where, because of the economic downturn, some desperate people are driven to this. It is very important that we must keep a tight check, not just on public morality but also on the question of public health. And I am glad that we have now imposed a condition which requires a compulsory check by a qualified medical practitioner.

Sir, one problem that we would have to consider is this. I know it is a serious problem how to discourage people from travelling with false documents? In my course of work, I have had to deal with this problem twice. I think the Government must take precaution because some Singaporean racket is involved and unless we know the source, unless we get these people busted, the poor victims will always be exploited. I know it is very difficult to ask every visitor to be thumb-printed, but it is important, for our own national security, that whenever an immigration officer feels that there is reason to believe that a person is not of bona fide standing, then we should impose this condition. Because there is nothing to stop these people from travelling with a new passport.

Sir, with these observations, I would like to support the Bill and I would urge the Minister to consider reviewing the whole of the immigration law so that the national security of Singapore is not put to risk.

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill, especially on the provision to impose penalties for those involved in illegal immigration and entry into Singapore. The deteriorating economic and political situation in the region could turn Singapore into one huge haven for refugees if we do not have stringent and punitive measures to deter illegal immigration. This little country can ill afford to accommodate or hope what could potentially be a bigger problem than we have ever thought.

I am, however, concerned about something quite different about amendments to section 8(b) and would like to seek the Minister's clarification on the matter for two reasons: (1) on the effects of tourism and visitors; and (2) on justice should a visitor find himself in breach of a law after he has entered Singapore. Section 8(b) terms a person suffering from AIDS as a protected immigrant. I would like to draw a difference between a person visiting Singapore and subsequently an AIDS patient finds himself to have breached the law as against a person or AIDS patient who enters Singapore and engages in activities that certainly bring danger to Singaporeans.

I agree that while we should have thorough and stringent medical examination as a pre-requisite to allowing someone to work in Singapore or stay here for a long period, such precautions are necessary to ensure that AIDS patients will not cause health and other problems. However, I seek clarification on the following. First, does the clause impose unnecessary barriers and prohibition of travel of AIDS patients amongst our visitors and tourists? Secondly, are we not discriminating against AIDS patients by making travel and access in and out of Singapore difficult for them? I am not making a moral judgment here but I think we can guarantee travellers/visitors free and unobstructive access to travel in Singapore so long as they do not cause danger to Singaporeans.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I thank the Members for speaking up on this Bill.

First, let me answer Mr Zulkifli's point about HIV carriers. This amendment is not intended to stop any HIV carrier from coming here as a tourist. If he is here as a tourist, a short-term visitor, he is not subjected to this Bill. This amendment on medical examination of people who may be HIV carriers only applies to those who work in Singapore or who apply to work in Singapore, and those people who are staying here for some time. So if they are here as short-term visitors, they are not affected. If they are here on long-term social visit pass, then they would be affected. For example, if they are here on a student pass, even though they may not be workers, they would be subjected to this amendment if they are here for a long period. Similarly, for those who are here on professional visit pass, they would also be subjected to this particular requirement. So let me assure the Member that this Bill is not to deter any tourist who may be an HIV carrier.

Sir, let me now talk about another point which Mr Rai raised before I talk about the general point about visitors. On speedboats, yes, indeed, we have to have a lot of speedboats and this is what the Police Coast Guard is doing: upgrading its capability and resources and renewing its speedboats when they become due for renewal. And as a result, we are going to acquire a few more very fast boats. Recently, I sat in one and found it very good indeed. I think it would be adequate for the purpose of patrolling our shores to ensure that those who come on very high speed speedboats will easily be caught by us and there would be no way of getting away from it.

On the more general point about tourists, this amendment is not intended to discourage tourists. We want to welcome tourists but at the same time we do not want these tourists to become overstayers. And how do we do that? It is to make sure that those whom we think or believe are likely to be potential overstayers, we must make it difficult for them to become overstayers. Therefore, for some time now, we have implemented visa requirements for those who come from India and subsequently for those who come from China and now for those who come from Bangladesh. We require them to furnish a bond and apply for a visa before they can come here as a visitor.

If they come here to work, then of course their agents will bring them in and apply for work permits and if their permit is approved, they will come here to work. But if they just come here and claim to be a tourist and eventually overstay, then we must find ways to sieve them out.

It is not our intention to impose stringent conditions on tour companies bringing in tourists. It is not our intention to dry up their business by requiring them to put up security bonds. But while we welcome tourists, while we want to promote such tour companies, we must also bear in mind that we should not allow some of these people who come here to overstay in Singapore.

Let me just give Members some data to illustrate what I mean when we have to impose visa or security bonds. Let me start with 1994. Otherwise, it will go into history and it will take a long time. In 1994, among the total number of 9,846 immigration offenders, 2,686 or about 25% of them were illegal immigrants. 7,001 or the majority of them were overstayers. In 1994, we imposed visa on Indian tourists and subsequently we saw a slight decline in the number. No visa was imposed on those who came from China. But in 1996, we decided to impose visa on those who came from China. As a result, we saw the number of overstayers from China went down and the number of illegal immigrants from China went up. Before I go into the details of such overstayers and immigration offenders, I will just give Members the other figures which I was referring to earlier.

In 1995, we had 11,732 immigration offenders. 6,587 or just slightly about half or 55% of them were overstayers. But the number of illegal immigrants had gone up to 5,001. In 1996, we had 14,260 immigration offenders. The number of overstayers was 8,553 and the number of illegal immigrants was 5,700. Then we decided to impose visa, as I said, on PRC visitors. The number of illegal immigrants subsequently went up to 7,599 in 1997, out of a total of 13,913 immigration offenders. That was all normal activity. In other words, police carried out the normal enforcement, etc. But since March this year, police stepped up their enforcement together with the Immigration and they patrolled our coast more strictly and they raided worksites, residences, haunts, etc. The number of immigration offenders arrested in the first seven months alone was already more than that for the whole of last year, 14,874. And among them, a great majority, 9,449 were illegal immigrants.

Who made up most of these people? I will come to the details which I am talking about. On Indians, after we imposed the visa in 1994, it took a while to take effect and the number of overstayers increased somewhat, but not that large, from 1,342 in 1996 to about 1,452 in 1997. But the number of illegal immigrants coming from India has shot up from 387 in 1996 to 909 in 1997. In the first seven months of 1998, the number of illegal immigrants arrested shot up to 1,700. So when they cannot come through the normal way, they will come in by the illegal way, ie, by smuggling themselves into Singapore.

But what is more startling is the number of illegal immigrants from PRC ever since we imposed the visa requirement. In 1996, the number of overstayers, ie, those who came to Singapore legally and overstayed was 2007, but the number of illegal immigrants was only 516. After we imposed the visa requirement, the number of PRC overstayers arrested dropped to 694, but the number of illegal immigrants of PRC origin arrested went up to 1,854. In other words, the figure has changed significantly. If they come in legally, they will overstay. When we imposed a visa requirement, they will smuggle themselves in. So if we do not have a visa requirement, there will be overstayers. Now we have, of course, to take enforcement action to look for them and eventually repatriate them when they are arrested. So I am not in favour of making it more liberal for tour companies to bring in foreigners, whether from PRC, India or any other country, who are likely to overstay in Singapore. We must continue with these visa rules to make sure that they do not overstay. Then we can take other actions to reduce the number of illegal immigrants.

To complete the picture, just in the first seven months of this year, the number of PRC illegal immigrants arrested was 1,909 which is already more than that for the whole of last year, although the number of overstayers has gone down to 768. The more liberal we are in our visa rule, the more people will come in here and overstay. It makes our problem very difficult because for Chinese, Indians or Bangladeshis, it is very easy for them to blend in with the environment and for enforcement action, it is very difficult to look for them until we ask them to produce their pass or identity card. So we must continue with this very strict policy of making sure that only those who come here are genuine tourists, and they must have the money. If not, they should not come here as tourists. For those who want to come to work, they must apply for a permit. We should not impose visa on the basis of whether the country is friendly or not friendly, and we cannot compare whether an American citizen is more favoured than a PRC citizen. We treat all nationalities equally, but if a particular nationality has a tendency to overstay, then we must look at the visa rule and apply the rule. If Americans come here and overstay, then we will apply the visa rule on them. I see very little evidence of that now. So we do not need to reciprocate the American visa rule on Singaporeans.

Immigration Department recently made some adjustments to the bond requirement of tour companies. For those tour companies which bring in tourists from PRC and they can look after them and make sure that they go home, we can be a bit more flexible, and that is where adjustments have been made to reduce the bond required for such tourists. But if they cannot look after their tourists who run away, then of course their bond value will go up. That is what we have done. I hope that these companies which bring in such tourists will continue to do their work and make sure that their tourists go home so that they can reduce their financial burden. Actually, it is just a bond from a bank. We do not require the money.

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.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 -

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 5, after line 5, to insert -

"(8) For the purpose of this section, "Government medical officer" includes a medical practitioner registered under the Medical Registration Act (Cap. 174) who is employed in any hospital or medical institution and who is designated by name or office by the Controller in writing for the purposes of this section.".".

Sir, this amendment is proposed because persons who are required to undergo medical examination by the Controller of Immigration for an infectious disease has to be referred to the Communicable Disease Centre at the Tan Tock Seng Hospital, which is now a restructured hospital. Therefore, there is a need to broaden the definition of "Government medical officer" to include private medical practitioners in restructured hospitals. The new definition will provide the Controller with the flexibility to designate other private medical practitioners in the private hospitals if such a need ever arises in future to carry out any medical examination.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: A consequential amendment will be made:

In page 5, line 5, to leave out "".".

This will be done.

Clauses 8 to 11 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.