ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (Number arrested)

Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will furnish information over the last three years (i) the number of illegal immigrants arrested, by their countries of origin, and (ii) the number of employers and agents arrested for employing illegal immigrants compared to the number of landlords arrested for harbouring illegal immigrants.

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, last year, the Home Team arrested about 16,500 immigration offenders, comprising both illegal immigrants and overstayers. This represents a 3% decrease compared to the 17,000 immigration offenders arrested in 1999, and a 28% decrease compared to the 23,000 immigration offenders arrested in 1998. While the situation has improved over the past three years, the figure last year is still 18% higher than the 14,000 arrested in 1997. The immigration offenders arrested came from all over the region, mainly Bangladesh, China and India. The immigration offender problem is therefore still a serious one.

As for harbourers and employers, there has been an increase in the number of arrests over the last three years. Last year, 590 people were arrested for harbouring immigration offenders, compared to 306 in 1999 and 166 in 1998. 572 people were arrested for employing immigration offenders. This is an increase over the 388 employers arrested in 1999 and the 270 arrested in 1998.

There were 10 housing agents arrested last year for abetting to harbour immigration offenders, compared to three in 1999 and one in 1998.

Mr Simon S C Tay (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, if I heard the numbers correctly, it seems that employers are relatively few, 572, but the number of landlords seems to be quite high. Is it not clear that people will only overstay if they had a job and therefore should we not do more about the employers? Secondly, the number of agents arrested is 10. Is that not stunningly low compared to the number for landlords?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the first point on the relativity of the figures, the figures are in fact quite close. Because for last year, 590 people were arrested for harbouring immigration offenders whereas 572, just slightly down by 18 people, were arrested for employing immigration offenders. I agree with Mr Tay that we have to attack the problem on both fronts. In fact, we have made it very clear that we treat each category of people with the same approach in terms of enforcement action. This has been done. SIR, together with MOM, carries out enforcement raids at places where immigration offenders may be working or places where they are gathering. In terms of the law too, they are of the same parity. So under the Immigration Act, an employer who is prosecuted and charged successfully with employing an immigration offender also faces the minimum mandatory six months' imprisonment. Indeed, if he engages or employs more than five immigration offenders, he also faces mandatory caning. So there are no two ways about it. As I have said, concerted actions on all fronts.

As for agents, the current law is such that when agents are charged, they are charged under the abetment provision. We have announced in this House that we are looking at changing the law so that the agents will also have to face the same requirement of due diligence. After all, they may be the ones who are in touch with the immigration offender. With the due diligence requirement of the harbourer or the employer, the agents will be subject to the same standards. So the low numbers are because of this fact, because they are charged for abetment and for abetment you have to prove knowledge. That is more difficult.

Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan (Nominated Member): Sir, recently it was reported in the press that a few illegal immigrants, including a newly-born baby, were arrested in a makeshift shelter, actually a storm drain. I would like to ask the Minister of State whether such developments, ie, illegal immigrants going literally underground, are as a result of the tougher stance taken by the Ministry on harbourers of illegal immigrants and whether such developments were anticipated by the authority. Although we understand the rationale for the Government's action, I would like to know whether the Ministry has considered the hardship befallen such economic refugees as a result of the tougher action.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I think we should be careful about this because it is a serious problem. So when we look at the whole situation and make it more onerous for harbourers to harbour illegal offenders, one consequence will be the fact that it would be more difficult for them to find accommodation. That actually explains why in the months after the enhanced publicity, more were caught. More Singaporeans were also reporting them. This is an extreme case where this immigration offender was found with a child. In other cases, yes, they will have some difficulties in finding accommodation and finding employment. But that is the purpose of the law. So that also sends a deterrent message to other people who will know that if they come in illegally, they face difficulties. And at the same time, the fact that they have to come out from their quarters, and some will hide in the forest, that will also enable the Police, together with MOM and other agencies, to catch them.

Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan: I will come back to the point made by Mr Simon Tay that the number of employers arrested appears very disproportionate to the number of harbourers of illegal immigrants arrested. If so, if your Ministry agrees to this fact, whether tougher action will be taken against employers of illegal immigrants?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I think it must be so because Singapore is porous, so immigration offenders come. So the numbers are large. It must be so that more immigration offenders are caught than the employers because the places where they work in Singapore would be more limited. But, as I have said, the focus of the law is also on the employers and the law is already very harsh.