HARBOURING OF IMMIGRATION OFFENDERS (Statement by the Minister for Home Affairs)

Debate resumed.

Mr Simon Tay: I will take up the point about duty. May I ask the Minister whether he feels that the landlords and employers are in the same category because it seems to me that a person who may be a landlord for his home is not in the business of renting out his house. There may be differences in education, background, knowledge and language abilities. The documents which the Minister referred to may many a time be in English, which are harder to understand for some people from foreign countries. Should there not therefore be a difference in the kind of duty we impose as between an employer whose business is to have employees and the landlord whose business may be otherwise? Secondly, may I get the Minister's assurance that where a landlord has seen the original documents, he will not face prosecution where these documents are actually faked because there are very good fakes running around. And, thirdly, may I ask the Minister whether he will consider some sort of administrative procedure to give assurance, a safe harbour to landlords, such as, for example, whether the landlords and the tenants could go down with the proper documents to a neighbourhood police post and have the police witness the process of verification?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, we have to treat both the employers and the landlords in the same category because both facilitate the stay of the legal immigrants in Singapore, one provides them with job, the other provides them with accommodation. No doubt, there are people with different abilities, education background, etc, but it is their duty to go and get someone to help them to check these documents if they themselves do not know. Not knowing and not being able to read is not a defence in this law. If the landlord has checked the document that is supposed to be original but, in fact, it is a fake, then it would be a good defence for him, if he can argue that in court, and much depends on the facts of the case, rather than for me to go and speculate what would happen if that happens, and so on. I cannot answer all these hypotheses. Only the court can decide based on available evidence.

On the procedure to get the landlords and the tenants to go to the NPP, I do not think it is necessary. All they need to do is to look at the documents, check the original passport and, if necessary, they can call up SIR, or MOM, rather than to create another layer in another place to do such a check.

Mr Simon Tay: A follow-up question, Sir. Even though I may call up SIR and get the assurance that there is such a work permit, there is another step to see that the person I am renting to is actually the person named in the document. Can I have the assurance of the Minister that if these circumstances prevail, the landlord would not be prosecuted? Secondly, on a similar vein, the problem of the procedure of letting landlords know whether they are safe is a real one. If we are not careful, landlords can be very cautious about even renting premises to legal immigrants and surely that will send the wrong signal in our search for foreign talent in Singapore.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I do not think this law will deter landlords who want to rent their properties to legal immigrants because it is quite easy to determine a legal immigrant from an illegal immigrant. And if the person has checked with SIR, SIR would give him the confirmation, provided they produce the original copies and not the photocopies. Earlier when Mr Inderjit Singh asked the Minister for Manpower whether they could check with MOM if they produce a photocopy, the Minister had said they cannot. They must check the original copies. From the original, SIR can determine whether that is an original pass from the record that is available with SIR.

Mr Simon Tay: I am not sure that the Minister has answered my question about the fact that I have got a document in front of me without a photograph. But that document does not actually belong to that person who is in front of me. In other words, there is a permit issued in a certain name, but the actual person in front of me is not really that person.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the work permit that we are issuing now is almost like our NRIC. It has a thumbprint, a photograph, the name of the person, the name of the employer, and so on. So all the particulars are there. Check that. If he happens to be someone who has been here for a while and before he updates to a new pass, then do the logical step, that is, check with SIR or with MOM because we have only started late last year to issue NRIC-type of work permits to foreign workers.

Mr Goh Choon Kang: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister how soon will the law be amended to include housing agents. Secondly, can the Minister also elaborate on the existing internal guidelines he mentioned just now about deciding whether to charge a person?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, we are looking at other amendments to the Immigration Act and once we are ready, we will present a Bill to the House for approval. Yes, there are internal guidelines. They are not meant to be public because if they know what these guidelines are, then it is easy for them to find the reasons why they should not be prosecuted, and we cannot allow that to be abused. Neither can we allow the guidelines to be undermined.

Mr Inderjit Singh: Sir, can I ask the Minister to clarify whether the due diligence process requires just a one-time check to verify the documents? In other words, if at the point of checking, the foreigner is indeed legal at that point of time, and subsequently, either a work permit or visit pass expires, then the person becomes illegal, is the landlord required to continuously check the documents to verify whether the visitor is indeed a legal visitor?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: The landlord should really check the work permit or the work pass to make sure that the period of tenancy covers the period that he has a valid work pass. If he does not have that, then of course, the landlord has got to be very careful. But once he has performed the check and later on if the tenant becomes illegal, for instance, because his employer has cancelled his work pass, then that will be a factor that the prosecution will consider in not charging him.

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap (Hong Kah): Can I ask the Minister whether this checking process can be made through Internet, ie, the Ministry provides the database with all the work permit passes so that the landlords can check through the Internet?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes, in fact, the Minister for Manpower said earlier on that this will be made available within the next three months and SIR is also doing the same thing in collaboration with the Work Permit Department. In the first phase, they will put the names and the Foreign Identification Number (FIN) and other details on the Internet, and subsequently, they will put in the photographs as well because it requires some time to prepare this process.

Assoc. Prof Chin Tet Yung: Sir, I would like to come back to the point about responsibility of agents and landlords. If a landlord who is not well-educated decides to trust an agent and employs an agent specifically for the purpose of checking the documentation and so on, would this not be sufficient as far as the landlord is concerned? Because he or she may not be very familiar with immigration documents but the housing agent professes to know a lot about that and is familiar with the checking processes and so on. Surely, it would not be right, at the same time, to require the landlord to go through the procedure once more because after all, he or she is much less well-informed as the housing agent and if the housing agent, who is professionally employed for the purpose, says that it is valid and everything has been done and he can be assured that the labourer is a legitimate immigrant to Singapore, why should the landlord be held accountable?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: It will be in the interest of the landlord to see the documents himself. For the agent, right now, there is no law that makes the agent liable. The law requires the landlord to perform those due diligence requirements. Supposing the landlord gets the agent to check it for him, and in a number of such instances that I read, the agent then disappeared and the landlord could not produce him, then there would be difficulties in assessing the evidence. As to whether eventually when we amend the law, and hold both parties liable or not, I have just said that this does not absolve the landlord from his liabilities. But in the end, the Court will have to decide based on the evidence.

Dr Vasoo: I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. First, I would like to say that I have no sympathy for people who exploit illegal immigrants by harbouring them, particularly employers. But there is a group of people who need an income and I am concerned about a large number of older residents. The Housing and Development Board permits the rental of one room or two rooms by these residents and many of them are less educated. And going to the Ministry of Manpower or Ministry of Home Affairs is a cumbersome process. Many of them might find it difficult to get access. I think it is a serious problem and we need to address that. Could we work out a system for people to easily verify the bona fide of those they are renting out to?

The other concern that I have, and the Minister might care to address, is that we are criminalising a group of people who are, in a way, just renting out their house and who may be unwitting at some point because of these cumbersome problems of trying to verify the bona fide of these people they are renting out to. And to send them to imprisonment is, in fact, a very heavy penalty. I was thinking whether there could be an option of either a heavy fine or imprisonment, if it is proved that they are really harbouring them, and also whether the Court could be given the discretion to establish this.

Thirdly, for elderly residents who are really ignorant, could the CDC office or the Housing and Development Board levy an administrative charge on these people who need to rent out, particularly older residents, and provide the service to establish the verification of the tenants' background? The respective Departments can deal with the Ministry of Home Affairs or the Ministry of Manpower to establish the background of these people they are renting out to.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the thrust of Dr Vasoo's question is: let us pass the responsibility of all these checks to somebody else and get the HDB or whoever to levy a fee. They cannot pay the $2 DBS charge. I think if agencies levy a fee, we are going to have a lot of trouble with these people.

But as I have said, this is a serious point. No landlord can disclaim responsibility. The law is very clear, regardless of whether he may be less educated, poor or needy. Being poor does not mean that he can be exempted from the law. Our laws must be applied to everyone.

I gave a long answer just now as to why there is no such thing as an unwitting offender. The Member said the procedure is cumbersome and, therefore, the landlord did not want to check. Then he is not unwitting. He is a party to it to allow this to happen. On the system to verify, I think the easiest thing is to look at the documents himself. If he does not know how to check, ask his neighbour. That is the simplest thing to do. Or he can make a phone call to SIR or MOM. He can still call and verify. But at the same time, he must ask for the piece of paper that supports this verification from SIR or MOM. Do not just depend on the phone call and later on say that he did call and there was no evidence of that. Primarily, the landlord is responsible regardless of his social status.

Dr Vasoo: Is the Minister aware that to just get through to the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Manpower is a tremendous effort? I have tried sometimes but I had great difficulty in getting through. How about those who are less educated who cannot get through? And if they get through, how are they going to verify? Who is going to substantiate that they have in fact checked?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the Minister for Manpower has just told me that it is not a fair statement to make because he himself called his own office, MOM's Work Permit Office, and he could get through and he found the girl very polite and very helpful. Of course, we must bear in mind that people do not just call SIR to check on the particulars of a foreigner. People call SIR for all kinds of enquiries, whether it is about passport, immigration pass, permanent residence status, social visit status, visas and so on. Although there are many phone lines, during the peak periods, they can be all occupied. If they cannot get through, try again. And if they still cannot get through, it is not a difficult thing to go to SIR. SIR has such a nice office environment, very friendly and all the signposts are very clear on how to get to a particular place, and it is right next to an MRT station. If Dr Vasoo says that these places are not accessible, I would not accept that, because Singapore is a very small place.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I have two questions. Firstly, in a situation where the landlord has exercised due diligence, verified the documents of his tenant, but subsequently, the tenant might bring his friend into the house to stay with him or sublet it without the landlord's notice, will the landlord be prosecuted under the circumstances?

Secondly, the Minister explained just now why there is a need for mandatory sentence to deter would-be illegal immigrants. But looking at the statistics, it seems to me that it is not really effective even with the mandatory sentence. I wonder why we want to impose a mandatory sentence rather than allowing the Court to decide based on the circumstances. Can we not trust the Court to decide on the different situations? I think the Court will know what is the policy of the Government. If it is really that serious to deter illegal immigrants, I believe the Court will impose the necessary punishment.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I cannot answer Mr Low's first question directly whether or not the landlord will be liable when the tenant brings in an illegal immigrant and lets a room out to him. Much turns on the facts whether the landlord is aware of this taking place and turning a blind eye to it. Because if the landlord turns up and collects rent, and he rents it out to two persons and regularly he sees many other people living there, then he has reasons to suspect. In fact, he should question his tenant who are these people, how long they have been there, etc. Much depends on the evidence available.

Mr Low said that the law is not effective even with mandatory sentence. I do not agree with that. Does he mean to say that the law is not deterrent enough and the six months' jail is not enough? Is he suggesting that? Already with the minimum six months' jail, everyone is talking about this being too harsh. Supposing we raise it higher, people will feel great pain. I do not think that is the problem. The point is that for the illegal immigrants, Singapore is such an attractive place. We have economic growth whereas many countries where they come from do not have employment, or maybe if they have, the pay is not as good as Singapore's. And they find it attractive to come here, even to the extent of borrowing money, thousands of dollars, pawning their jewellery or whatever, and selling their homes and so on, to come here because they think they can make a better living here, earn, save and bring home the money. It is a great attraction to come and work in Singapore. For the landlords and the harbourers, as I have said, the due diligence requirements were not as clearly spelt out as in 1998. So despite prosecution efforts, many of the harbourers and employers managed to get off. But now with stricter enforcement by the Police and SIR, we see a larger number of harbourers and employers being arrested in the last three years. This is because we found the situation untenable. With so many of them coming into Singapore illegally and if our landlords and employers continue to harbour and employ them, then we must take tough action.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, as regards landlords, the landlord does not know and has no knowledge of the subletting. On the question of deterrence, if the court, even without mandatory sentence in the legislation, were to impose very heavy penalty, is that not deterrent enough?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the minimum sentence stated in the legislation is to give the court an idea of what is the minimum we expect of the sentence. That is why we have it in the legislation.

Mr Inderjit Singh: Sir, the Minister mentioned that the law will be reviewed. Can I suggest that in reviewing the law, maybe we want to consider passing the onus on the eligibility to rent a room or a house back to the tenant, or to the employer? And to implement a system like a certificate of eligibility where MOM or SIR actually issues for potential tenants a certificate of eligibility for foreigners, and a way to cross check travel documents. I think, in this way, we probably pass back the onus to the tenant. We separate the landlords from employers who actually employ illegal immigrants.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: What Mr Singh is suggesting is that we add another layer for the landlord to check the certificate of eligibility. Already with three checks, he cannot make it.

Mr Inderjit Singh: Sir, we will cut the three checks to just one check, ie, the certificate of eligibility, maybe the certificate against the passport. I think that is all that needs to be done.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I think it cannot be done because if a work permit can be forged, an eligibility certificate will be more easily forged. So it is better that a landlord looks at the original documents, ie, passport, work passes and, if necessary, call the employer and the SIR or MOM. I think that is a safer bet for him than to create another layer of bureaucracy.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Sir, further to Mr Inderjit Singh's point, I think what he meant was that if we have a system to allow a person to go to the Internet and do an on-line search, one can actually download the information of the person being checked. That information is on the computer and you can have a print-out. And that will be the basis for proof or evidence that you have done the necessary checks. Probably this can be done.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes, that is one piece of paper showing that he has checked with SIR or MOM. There are two other checks. He has got to look at the person's pass, look at him, look at his passport, and compare the particulars. If he does not do that, it is not enough just to depend on that website print-out from SIR or MOM.

Dr Vasoo: Sir, the explanation by the Minister seems more cumbersome, in the sense that landlords have got to do several checks. What I would like to tell him is that there are cases which are genuine. These people, to an extent, carried out these checks. Having done this, there is the question of getting some verification. If they cannot get that verification because of the problems of getting access to the Ministry, we are, in fact, punishing some of these people unnecessarily. Could we not give the court the discretion of imposing either a heavy fine or jail?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I have already said that there will be no such discretion for imposing a fine, because we need a mandatory jail sentence. And even with the mandatory jail sentence since 1984, we have not solved the problem. So let us not try to find another way to give them a fine. Dr Vasoo says that the procedure is cumbersome. The Minister for Manpower explained earlier, and I also reiterate here, that it is quite simple to go to SIR. Go to Lavender MRT station, get out there, go to SIR and get a print-out from them. That is his check with SIR about that person whom he is wanting to rent his properties to. But he must also check his passport and work pass to make sure that it is the same person. He cannot shift the responsibility to anybody.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, how does a person prove that he has checked the passport and the original documents? Does he need a witness in case the person turns out to be an illegal immigrant? The witness can say, "Yes, I have seen him verifying."

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, if he has looked at it, checked, confirmed, etc, and he makes a copy for himself, then he has performed the due diligence requirement. Eventually, if he is still taken to court and the prosecution did not believe him, then the court will have to decide based on available evidence.

Dr Lily Neo: Sir, may I ask the Minister whether everyone is required, under the law, to report an illegal immigrant if he or she should encounter one? Second, if a medical doctor encounters an illegal immigrant patient, is he bound under the same ruling?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the Immigration Act does not require the reporting of an illegal immigrant by any Singaporean sighting an illegal immigrant. In general, Singaporeans cannot tell the difference just by looking at a person. They have to look at his papers, ie, passport, passes and so on before they can determine whether that person's stay here is legal or not. So the Immigration Act does not require reporting to be done. But I would suggest that they do so for their own safety, if they know of any. If they have people in the neighbourhood whom they suspect to be illegal immigrants, then they can give SIR a call or make a police report, and they will do quiet investigations. Police will not just raid the place just because somebody makes a phone call, and then the Police will be running around raiding houses. They will do quiet investigations and after they have determined the facts, they will do something about it.

As for doctors, I think the doctors have their own code of practice, and it is for them to decide.

Dr Vasoo: Sir, I just want to follow up again because I have quite a lot of elderly residents who do rent out one room of their flats from time to time. As I have said, many of them are not that literate. I would like to ask whether we could make it easier for them if we have a one-stop centre where they can ask their neighbourhood leaders or Residents' Committee leaders to go and help them to verify.

An hon. Member: Ask the MP?

Dr Vasoo: Or the MP. And, finally, they have to answer or be charged. Because he says, "Look, he gave advice."

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the landlord has to perform the due diligence requirement. If he cannot do it, he can ask anyone to assist him. As I said, he can ask anyone to assist him to verify, and the court will take that into account.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, as I look at the number of illegal immigrants here, there are 28,000. Of course, if we add the overstayers, it will be about 32,000. Compared to the number of foreigners here, this is a small percentage. But, in absolute numbers, this is quite large because, at the moment, there are 28,000 illegal immigrants in Singapore. And even if two of them stay in one household, there are 14,000 households at risk at the moment. This is quite serious to landlords and people who allow illegal immigrants to stay here. Sir, I am wondering how did so many of them slip through our immigration checkpoints and get into Singapore?

As regards overstayers, I understand. Of course, they came in legally but overstayed, and then they became illegal immigrants. But for first-time illegal immigrants, how did 28,000 slip through our immigration checkpoints?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, Mr Chiam has said in this House that he cannot add, and I believe him. In the Table, the first row is Immigration offenders (1) = (2) + (3). (2) means row two. (3) means row three. So row (1) = row (2) + row (3). Sir, he added them all up. But do not worry, Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, my arithmetic was not quite correct, but I was looking at the wrong column.

Some hon. Members: Wrong row!

Mr Wong Kan Seng: How did the illegal immigrants manage to come here? As I have said, Sir, our checkpoints are very safe, but every day illegals attempt to come in either through the Woodlands or Tuas Checkpoints. They hide in lorries, modified cars with compartments, in the undercarriage, behind the seats and so on. There are all kinds of ways and means for these people to smuggle themselves in, because it is quite lucrative for the traffickers to bring illegal immigrants into Singapore. I am told that for every person they bring in, they can make between 80 - 100 ringgit. If they smuggle three each time and two runs a day, they will be quite rich.

Apart from that way, the illegals also try to come in by boats. They take a speedboat and rush through our very narrow waters between Malaysia and Singapore, and in three minutes they are there before the PCG could even reach them. And that is why we have deployed more than 50 boats every day to deal with these people who come in by boats.