IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Introduction

Sir, Singapore is a small country with limited resources. The presence of immigration offenders, such as illegal immigrants and overstayers, poses a serious social problem, and compromises our safety and security. MHA has taken, and will continue to take, a tough stance against all immigration offenders as well as anyone who harbours, employs or assists them to enter or remain unlawfully in Singapore.

Column: 1072

The Immigration Act regulates the entry, stay and exit of foreigners into and out of Singapore. This Bill amends the Act to enhance the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority's (ICA) operational powers to tackle the immigration offender problem.

The immigration offender situation

The widespread publicity on the harbouring of immigration offenders has helped to raise public awareness of the problem. Through our public education efforts like Crime Watch and the circulation of information leaflets, as well as media publicity on the tough sentences meted out to harbourers, the public is well-aware of our tough stance on the harbouring of immigration offenders. Our concerted efforts have resulted in a 40% drop of harbourers arrested, from 527 in the year 2000, to 333 last year.

Sir, this drop is a result of the measures taken over the past four to five years. Our efforts have, therefore, borne fruit. While we arrested some 16,500 illegal immigrants and overstayers in 2000, this number fell to 11,900 last year, a drop of almost 30% over three years. But we cannot be complacent.

In strengthening our multi-pronged approach to deal with the supply and demand of immigration offenders, MHA has reviewed the Immigration Act to ensure that the current provisions remain relevant. This amendment Bill is a result of this review. Let me now elaborate on the key amendments.

Harbouring of immigration offenders

Lower limb for harbouring of immigration offenders

Sir, when the due diligence requirements were introduced more than 10 years ago in 1993, the clearly spelt out

Column: 1073

checks helped landlords to verify the identity and immigration status of their foreign tenants. These checks not only play a vital role in keeping Singapore safe, but they also ensure the personal safety of the landlords, especially since they are renting out their premises to strangers.

We have previously informed the House that the police and ICA have in place a set of internal guidelines to determine whether landlords caught for harbouring immigration offenders should be charged in court. Over the years, we have constantly reviewed and finetuned these guidelines to ensure their relevance and effectiveness. Consequently, between 2000 and 2003, about half of the harbourers arrested were prosecuted while the rest were issued with a stern warning. Those prosecuted, if convicted, faced mandatory imprisonment of six months or more.

Given the seriousness of the harbouring offence, we will retain the current mandatory jail sentence to provide a clear deterrence to and aid the prosecution of defiant or recalcitrant offenders who knowingly or recklessly harbour immigration offenders.

What is new in these amendments is that those found guilty of negligently harbouring an immigration offender will not face mandatory imprisonment. This will, therefore, bridge the gap in the current Act where the prosecution either has to prosecute offenders for an offence that carries a mandatory imprisonment sentence, or let them off with a stern warning. Also, the courts will have some leeway not to have to send an offender to jail, if found guilty.

Clause 19 of the Bill amends section 57 of the Act by introducing a graduated dual-limb penalty structure for the harbouring offence. Those charged with

Column: 1074

"reckless harbouring" must show that they have conducted any two of the three due diligence checks or furnish other evidence to support their claims that they did not recklessly harbour the immigration offender. If the court is satisfied that the accused had not acted with reckless disregard, or, if the prosecution decides at the outset that that is the proper charge to prefer in the first place, the offender would face a charge of "negligent harbouring" where the accused must then show that he has conducted all the three due diligence checks or provide other evidence to prove that he had not negligently harboured the immigration offender. In other words, if a landlord has conducted only two of the due diligence checks, he is liable to be found guilty of negligent harbouring, which does not carry a mandatory jail sentence. If a landlord conducts only one of the three due diligence checks, he may be charged under either the negligent or reckless limb, depending on the circumstances of the case.

Hence, Sir, MHA's call for landlords to carry out all three due diligence checks remains unchanged. To ensure that they would not be charged for harbouring an immigration offender, this is what they have to do. It is a commonsensical approach. But even if they fail to do all three checks, the prosecution will examine the circumstances of the case before determining the course of action to take. With the new amendment, it is now possible that some offenders may not face mandatory imprisonment, if found guilty.

Refinement to due diligence checks and provision for housing agents to do these checks

Let me set out once again the three due diligence checks that landlords should perform before they rent out their premises to foreign tenants. Firstly, they should inspect the original entry permit or

Column: 1075

visit pass, which has been incorporated into the identification card for work permit holders. Secondly, they should ascertain that the holder of the passport is the person named in the pass or permit. And, finally, they should verify with the employer that the tenant's particulars tally with those in their records.

Since August 2000, ICA and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) have provided an on-line verification service to facilitate the public in checking the immigration status of their foreign tenants. Clause 19 of the Bill offers this alternative in the legislation to the third due diligence check of verifying the tenant's particulars with his employer. With the amendment, the third due diligence check will be satisfied if the validity of the pass of their foreign tenants is verified either by checking with the employer, ICA or MOM. This will make it easier for the third check to be conducted.

MHA has looked at another group of people who play a key role in the renting out of premises. They are the middlemen, such as housing agents and foreign labour agents, who, in return for monetary reward, assist landlords to rent out their premises to an immigration offender. Currently, only the landlord is required to exercise due diligence to check the immigration status of his foreign tenants. If caught harbouring immigration offenders, it is presumed that he knows that his foreign tenants were immigration offenders, unless he proves that he has done the three due diligence checks.

However, in some instances, the landlords depend on middlemen, such as housing agents, to secure their tenants. Not only do housing agents receive monetary benefits from these transactions, they can get away scot-free, as they are currently not required to verify the immigration status of the foreign tenants they introduce. This is not right.

Column: 1076

Some landlords also rely on these trained professionals to ascertain the status of their tenants in Singapore. These housing agents are thus just as, if not more, culpable than the landlords.

Clause 21 of the Bill, therefore, introduces a new section 57B, such that anyone who assists the landlord in the renting of his premises to an immigration offender in return for any reward, is presumed to have assisted, encouraged or induced the landlord to provide shelter to the immigration offender. Such a middleman will need to also conduct the three due diligence checks when they help the landlords to rent out their premises to foreign tenants. Those convicted will be liable to mandatory imprisonment of six months to two years, as well as a fine not exceeding $6,000.

Sir, these due diligence checks are not new. They are clearly spelt out in our legislation and have been widely publicised. When this proposal

was first mooted, MHA consulted the Institute of Estate Agents and the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers. Representatives from these two bodies acknowledged the importance and need for housing agents to be responsible for ensuring that their foreign clients have legal status in Singapore before recommending them as prospective tenants to the landlords. They supported the proposal and indicated that they would assist in publicising the new requirements to their members.

Enhancing enforcement efforts

Sir, let me now touch on a group of amendments that will enhance ICA's enforcement powers against undesirable foreigners.

First, collection of biometric identifiers. Currently, the Act already allows ICA to collect finger impressions from any person who applies for a pass or permit, or any person suspected of having

Column: 1077

committed certain immigration offences, as defined in the Act or Regulations. The objective of collecting finger impressions is to prevent undesirable foreigners from returning to Singapore using different passports which bear different names. Instead of just fingerprints, clause 19 will amend the Act to allow ICA to collect biometric identifiers of travellers and immigrants.

The type of identifiers ICA can collect will be specified in the Regulations. Given that the field of biometrics is evolving very rapidly, this will give ICA the flexibility to add other types of biometric identifiers should the need arise in future. For a start, the Regulations will specify the collection of photographs and finger impressions.

Second, enhanced penalty for using forged travel documents. Sir, last year, ICA officers arrested 586 people for using forged passports or other people's passports. In the first six months of this year, 303 people were arrested for this offence. MHA is concerned with this trend. In the current security climate, we must ensure that prohibited immigrants and syndicates are taken to task for using forged travel documents to enter or transit through Singapore.

To send a strong deterrent signal, we propose to enhance the penalty for this offence which is currently a fine not exceeding $2,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both. Clause 12 of the Bill amends section 28 of the Act to expressly provide for the penalty of a fine of up to $6,000, or imprisonment of up to 24 months, or both, for such an offence. This increase is in line with the penalties for similar forgery or cheating offences dealt with under the Penal Code.

Third, conveying of immigration offenders out of Singapore. Currently, the

Column: 1078

Act only provides for the offence of conveying of immigration offenders into Singapore but not those who attempt to convey them out of the country. Clause 19 rectifies this lacuna and equalises the penalty for the conveyance of immigration offenders into or out of Singapore.

Fourth, seizure of monies for repatriation purposes. Sir, last year, ICA repatriated more than 11,800 foreigners who had either entered Singapore illegally or violated the conditions set out in their immigration passes.

To enable swifter repatriation of these undesirable foreigners, clause 16 will empower the Controller to seize monies found in possession of any prohibited immigrant to cover any expenses incurred by the Government in connection with his or his dependants' detention, maintenance, medical treatment and removal from Singapore.

Fifth, requiring vehicles to stop for immigration clearance. Sir, sometimes, drivers of vehicles with immigration offenders hidden in them fail to stop for immigration checks and speed off from the checkpoints. To strengthen our enforcement against conveyance of immigration offenders, clause 7 of the Bill introduces a new section 18B to explicitly require all motor vehicle drivers to stop at the checkpoints for immigration checks when entering or leaving Singapore. Especially in today's security climate, it is critical that all vehicles do so.

Sixth, arming immigration officers. Clause 14 of the Bill will empower immigration officers to be armed under the Immigration Act. However, only selected ICA officers, such as those involved in enforcement actions against immigration offenders, will be issued with firearms due to the high operational risk of their job. Let me assure the House that public safety is our top priority - the immigration officers will have to undergo

Column: 1079

proper training before they are allowed to carry firearms.

Other amendments

Sir, at the same time, MHA will also be making other administrative and technical amendments to the Immigration Act to allow for better administration of the Act. These amendments will streamline current practices such as regularising the stay in Singapore of children born to foreign parents and of ex-citizens; clarify existing provisions such as the imposition of conditions on entry permit holders; achieve operational efficiency such as the requirement for crew members arriving in Singapore to furnish security bonds; and streamline provisions of the Immigration Act with other legislation such as providing for the Public Prosecutor to apply before the court confiscates a vehicle or vessel used in the commission of an offence.

Sir, in conclusion, these amendments will enable us to more effectively tackle the immigration offender problem and to facilitate immigration officers in carrying out their duties.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani: Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to speak. I generally support this Bill. Many of the amendments are indeed very welcomed. Before I continue, Sir, may I declare my interest as a lawyer. In the course of my work, I do deal with immigration offences.

New sections 10 and 11A reflect Singapore's recognition that globalisation changes our attitudes towards citizenship. We still do not accept dual citizenship - that has not changed. But these provisions facilitate ex-Singaporeans a more convenient access back to Singapore than previously allowed. We

Column: 1080

recognise that those who emigrate nowadays and decide to give up our citizenship do not always do so in utter disagreement with our norms and values. More so now than before, the pressures and opportunities arising from globalisation are more important reasons. And this amendment is a significant gesture, more in tune with the times.

However, Sir, I feel that the 24-hour grace period given to ex-Singaporeans upon cessation of citizenship either to leave or to apply for a permit to stay is quite short. Cessation of citizenship could be made on the eve of a public holiday which gives the applicant literally only a few hours to get his paperwork done, otherwise, his extended stay will not be in the house but maybe in jail. Not all people are Internet-savvy and have immediate access to the relevant authorities. Perhaps, a 72-hour grace period is more reasonable. A longer grace period also reflects our current mood that we are not in a hurry to ask people to leave even if they no longer wish to be Singaporeans. Alternatively, I would urge the immigration authorities to enforce this provision with a human touch. So long as security is not compromised, some leniency is not out of place.

Sir, new section 18B makes it a duty for every driver coming into Singapore to stop his vehicle for inspection at authorised places. There is a need to educate the public further on this. Presently, large signboards giving clear instructions and located at strategic points do help. In addition, perhaps it is useful to distribute pamphlets at relevant points along the immigration passageway. Such information is to avoid misunderstanding and unnecessary alarm both to the public and to the enforcement officers.

Sir, recently, a relative of mine drove back from Malaysia to Singapore together

Column: 1081

with members of his family. He had his wife and four young daughters with him. He had cleared the immigration customs and even the security. After which, he entered into a lane to get out of the immigration checkpoint. But half of the lane was barricaded. He was not sure where to go. He played safe and stopped behind the barricade, which actually was not what he was supposed to do, he was supposed to go through. But because he parked the car at a place where he was not supposed to park, suddenly, about six Gurkha officers surrounded the car and there came along immigration officers as well. Can you imagine the "excitement" - if I may use a positive word - that happened in the car and outside. This is just to illustrate the point that instructional points and directions are necessary in order to avoid alarm.

Some amendments to section 57 are welcomed. It is important that landlords must know their duties. New section 57(7D) clarifies the minimum that landlords must do and I urge the Ministry, in conjunction with the HDB, to educate the public further on the duties of landlords on the three checks. I call it the PP, VAP and the V. The PP is to inspect the pass and permit, VAP is to check it against the passport and the V is to check for validity - something simple like this for landlords to remember.

Sir, the creation of a minor offence with no mandatory imprisonment term or minimum fine is a welcomed move. The court could exercise flexibility to mete out symbolic punishments in truly deserving cases, instead of being bound to send offenders to jail whatever their circumstances. In this regard, I sincerely hope that the courts do not fetter this flexibility with its own internal tariffs. I understand the need for consistency. I appreciate the need for lower courts to be bound by decisions of higher courts and to accord

Column: 1082

deference to its own previous decisions. These legal maxims must be strictly applied to principles of law. When it comes to sentencing, I think it is not doing justice to legislative intent if, in the name of consistency, the court, in effect, imposes its own mandatory minimum.

Next, Sir, I am also concerned that the new section 57(7C) does not state that in doing the three checks, it is sufficient. It states that a defendant, who is charged, shall not be deemed to have exercised due diligence, unless he has discharged the three checks. To prove due diligence, he must prove that he has done the three checks. But the question is: if he has done the three checks, is that enough? It seems not so. Looking at the new section 57(1)(v), under this section, he may still be liable for the new minor offence. This seems to place a heavy burden on potential landlords. They are told what to do and yet, they do not know whether what they do is enough. I would suggest that once the defendant has proven the three checks, the burden of proof shifts back to the prosecution to show lack of due diligence. This would make the duty of the landlord more certain.

I have a similar view as regards the intermediate offence, where the defendant proves two out of three checks. While I welcome the concept of this intermediate offence, I thought that the shifting of proof back to the prosecution mechanism would establish greater certainty.

Sir, I also welcome the new section 57B. The main practical effect of this is that housing agents can be liable if the landlords commit the offence of giving shelter to immigration offenders. It is only fair that as people who are in the business, and who are likely to have much more knowledge than landlords about the ramifications of procuring tenants, they should share the responsibility. Sir, with the inclusion of this new responsibility, I wonder whether bona fide checks done by agents or attorneys are sufficient to

Column: 1083

absolve landlords from having to personally conduct similar checks. Perhaps, where there are statements made under oath by agents or attorneys to the effect that two checks have been made in compliance with section 57(d) - there are three checks - if such statements are made, should these be regarded as sufficient to absolve landlords from their duty to check further? This, I suggest, makes more sense and is better for business efficacy.

While I support the amendments, Sir, I hope the Senior Minister of State could address the concerns raised.

Mr R Ravindran (Marine Parade): Sir, I welcome the proposed amendments to the Immigration Act, particularly those relating to the introduction of the new offences of harbouring illegal immigrants negligently under the new section 57.

The existing law only provided for a minimum punishment of 6 months for intentional harbouring of illegal immigrants. I have come across many cases where the accused are very aged or illiterate who have been charged under the existing section 57 and sentenced to a minimum of 6 months' imprisonment. There was no alternative for the investigator and the prosecution but to charge the accused under section 57, nor was there a lesser charge that could be preferred against the accused, depending on the severity of the offence or the other vulnerabilities/weaknesses of the accused. In short, the law previously provided a one-size-fits-all solution to a problem which required a flexible and varied approach on a case-by-case basis.

I am glad that the Ministry of Home Affairs has understood the draconian impact of the law and had exercised prosecutorial discretion to let off some offenders, whose case fell on the borderline, with a severe warning. But there are many others who have been

Column: 1084

sent to prison regardless of the mitigating and sympathetic circumstances of each case.

That the law was draconian was felt by many in the law enforcement, prosecution and even judicial circles. I am happy that the MHA has come to recognise that there must be room for discretion to be exercised by the police, the Attorney-General and the courts in preferring charges against the accused for illegal harbouring under the Immigration Act.

Sir, I have two primary concerns about the new provisions of negligent harbouring of illegal immigrants. The first concerns the prosecutorial discretion not to charge offenders where the accused is proved to have done at least one of the checks or was misled by the housing agent that he had done the checks. I hope that the police and the AG's Chambers would continue to exercise discretion and not prosecute where the facts do not warrant it. My fear is that with the new provisions of negligent harbouring, the police or the prosecution may coerce or induce the accused to plead guilty to a lesser charge even when they are innocent. They may charge the accused under the original limb of section 57(d)(i) but then offer the accused a reduced charge of negligent harbouring to secure an easy conviction. This may put some accused in a dilemma. If they fight the case, they may be convicted for a serious offence under section 57(d)(i) and get 6 months' imprisonment, and they have to worry that if they do appeal, their sentence may be enhanced on appeal. But if they do not fight the case, they are then induced to plead guilty to a charge of negligent harbouring. All they want is a fair trial where the police or the prosecution charge them for the offence which are borne by the facts. In such event, the accused should be offered the opportunity to have a fair trial to determine whether the accused was

Column: 1085

negligent or innocent. I do hope MHA would monitor the cases under the new provisions so that "abuse" of the new provisions does not take place in order to secure easy convictions.

The second concern relates to the necessary checks to establish the degree of the offence and the charge that will be preferred. The three checks that are laid out in the Act are:

(a) the landlord first checks the foreign tenants' original pass or permit;

(b) the landlord checks that the particulars in the passport correspond with the particulars in the pass or permit; and

(c) if the employer's name is in the pass or permit, the landlord has to check with the employer that the person's particulars correspond with the employer's record.

Sir, the weakness of the present system of verification is that many landlords are novices. They could not distinguish between a forged pass or permit against an original one. The quality of present day forged documents is very high. In fact, it is so good that even police officers could be duped on first sight. There are organised syndicates and smart labour agents who know how the present verification process takes place. The trick is that the names and particulars of a forged pass or permit would correspond to a real permit or pass holder, but the photograph usually would be different. There could be two passports, one original and another one forged. There could be two work permits, one original and another one forged. If a person merely looks at the forged work permit and the forged passport, the details would tally and the photographs would match because both are forged, and the checks would then be considered completed.

Column: 1086

When one calls the employers with either the pass or the passport to check, the employer would confirm that the person named and the FIN number or the work permit number tallies, when in reality, they are actually forged documents.

Sir, there is one way to authenticate which would make it difficult to circumvent, and that is through photographic identification. If the landlord is able to check with MOM or ICA, the photograph on the pass or permit given by the foreigner against the original photograph submitted to MOM or ICA, that would go a long way to solving the problem of forged permits and passes. This would prevent many landlords, even employers, from being duped by illegal immigrants. I do hope that, on top of the present system of verification of just the names and particulars, we could also provide for a way whereby the photographs that are put on the passes or permits could be verified against the photographs or other documents that are with MOM or ICA.

Lastly, on the question of the impact on housing agents and labour agents. Sir, the new section 57B extends the presumption clause and due diligence requirements to middlemen who assist, encourage or induce landlords to provide shelter to immigration offenders. This new clause primarily targets housing agents and foreign labour agents. The punishment is very strict as it imposes a minimum sentence of 6 months' imprisonment in the event of conviction. I am encouraged that MHA has finally shifted the onus to housing agents and labour agents and made them accountable. Many landlords rely on these agents to do the necessary checks on these foreigners. In some instances, the housing or labour agents assure the landlords that they had done the necessary checks and misled the landlord to rent their premises. But, when an illegal immigrant is found on the premises of the

Column: 1087

landlord, and the matter is investigated by the police, they would disclaim all responsibility and pinpoint the landlord as the person responsible. They get away scot-free. They charge professional fees, but they do not discharge their duty as all responsible agents should.

I am reassured by these latest amendments that all agents involved in the housing of illegal immigrants would be taken to task. I am confident that with these amendments landlords could expect greater professionalism and detailed checks by housing and labour agents before they place foreigners in the premises. I hope that all professional real estate companies would take necessary action to train their agents and have in place an immigrant verification process that could withstand police scrutiny.

One of the negative effects, the way the law is drafted at the moment, is that it covers any middlemen, and that also applies to lawyers. My concern is that there may be many middlemen who are not housing agents, labour agents or lawyers, who may be caught under the clause. So I would like to urge the Ministry of Home Affairs to publicise the new provisions actively through all professional bodies so that they are made aware of this law and they could educate their members not to fall foul of this new law.

On that note, Sir, I support the proposed amendments.

Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast): Sir, it may be refreshing to hear from a non-lawyer after so many and one more to follow. Sir, not too long ago, when we were confronted with the problem of killer litter, the law stipulated that anyone throwing things, whether it is litter or otherwise, when caught, would deserve a mandatory jail sentence. In relation to this episode, a case was related to me of a seamstress who had to carry a pile of

Column: 1088

jeans that she had sewn, from her flat on the 4th floor to a van waiting below her flat, presumably to take delivery. In between the transfer, she rested a pile of jeans on the parapet to catch her breath. Apparently, due to exhaustion, she lost hold of her wares and the pile of jeans came tumbling down from the 4th floor. Although the information was given to me anecdotally, my source told me that she was subsequently charged and served a 2 weeks' mandatory jail sentence. As defined by the law then, things thrown from a flat are deemed to be killer litter and thus the need to charge. When it came before our courts, although our judges were sympathetic to the specific case of the seamstress, they had no choice and had little discretion, but to mete out the 2 weeks' mandatory jail sentence stipulated according to the law.

Sir, my parliamentary colleague, the hon. Mr Shanmugam, had spoken passionately in this House on the need to amend our immigration law. He had spoken then that the mandatory jailing of landlords, which puts them on par with grave crimes and serious criminals, represents an erosion of the principle that Parliament prescribes mandatory jail sentences only in severest cases. Sir, with this proposed amendment, the erosion of this principle has not been prevented. Unlike killer litter, negligent landlords do not put human lives at risk. But, like the killer litter episode mentioned earlier, once the law stipulates a mandatory jail sentence, it effectively takes away the discretionary powers of our public servants and, in particular, much of the discretionary powers of our courts.

However, with this amendment, the introduction in section 57 of a negligent harbouring limb, discretion is enabled. Our civil service is filled with some of our ablest and brightest. They must be entrusted with the powers of discretion to decide, especially when it comes to

Column: 1089

prosecuting for the greater good of the nation. More importantly, if our judges are entrusted with the powers to mete out death sentences to deserving criminals, by extension, they must also be able to discern between harbourers of illegal immigrants, who deserve stiff sentences, and the unfortunate exceptions, who may not deserve a mandatory jail sentence.

I support the amendment in the Bill extending the catch to include the middlemen who assist, encourage or induce landlords under section 57B to provide shelter to immigration offenders. The property market in Singapore currently is tough all round, be it within the rental or sale segment of the market. Many real estate agents are finding the going tough and some may be tempted to put caution to the wind. A few desperate agents may stop at nothing to conclude a transaction and may inevitably put themselves or their clients, the landlords, at risk and thus cast a black mark on the industry.

Similarly, although the unemployment situation is on the mend, the sad fact of chronic unemployment hitting some 70,000-odd Singaporeans remains and, confronted with a tight situation of financial difficulties, I would not be surprised if house-owners become more lax when doing the necessary due diligence on would-be tenants. How many times have we encountered in our meet-the-people sessions of struggling residents with multi-faceted problems, including mounting arrears? Their problems are complex, compounded with a tough job market. The single mother, desperate for money, may be quite callous and not to do the necessary due diligence when confronted with the opportunity of renting her flat for some much needed cash. Or, for that matter, our single and/or elderly residents, receiving no support from their

Column: 1090

friends or relatives, and needing to eke out a living on their own in spite of their old age, are still fit to work, they too have to compete with the tough employment situation, and having little or no education, could we blame them if they are less than cautious in applying the three required due checks to absolve them from penalty? With the provision in section 57, discretion could be applied if the courts and prosecutors are satisfied. Had this amendment been in effect last year, the mitigating factors might have saved a constituent of mine from imprisonment, like our hon. Member, Mr Ravindran, had mentioned earlier. This incident involved my resident. He employed a worker and checked his document that seemed to be in order. One day the police came, did a spot check and all was fine, seemingly. And, another day, a spot check by Immigration Officers found out the document was false. This resident of mine was in prison.

Sir, on another consideration, we know that the tenancy agreements are also stamped and registered with IRAS where both the details of the landlord and tenant are recorded. In our drive to consolidate and interconnect Government services, could the Government consider a system or process to inform landlords of any change in the status of the immigrant tenants by alert or notification, so that the landlord could take necessary steps to protect his interest and, in fact, avoid being penalised? So this closing of the loop, as it were, would make differentiating the recalcitrant, knowing and reckless harbourers stand out. It would take close cooperation between MOM, ICA and possibly IRAS in some cases, but surely this is a challenge that our civil service could face and overcome.

The inclusion in the amendment of the lower limb for harbouring is long overdue.

It would seem that the several scenarios I have mentioned and past cases that claim much publicity reveal that the

Column: 1091

discretionary hand is crucial in the application of the law according to its intent. Although the amendment aims at giving the courts and prosecution more discretion, the provision for mandatory jail sentence may be made clearer and specifically applied to recalcitrant, reckless, knowing and intentional harbourers.

Last but not least, Sir, I speak in support of the amendment of section 38A of the Bill to arm our immigration officers. On a daily basis, our officers at the frontier of our borders risk life and limb in ensuring that the fabric of our society is not threatened with undesirable elements entering our shores. Given that Singapore has been singled out as a target for the extended arm of the Al Qaeda group in South East Asia, it is timely that we adequately arm our officers and that their lives too are not threatened. I call on our Ministry, in doing so, not to be half hearted about it but to not only appropriately but adequately arm and train our officers. Sir, it is needless to say that our immigration officers face challenges from unknown enemies with equally unknown weaponry.

Sir, I support this amendment.

Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I wish to declare my interest on this Bill as a practising lawyer in criminal law.

Sir, I would like to comment on the following proposed amendments to the Immigration Act. Section 6(2) requires completion of embarkation forms except for Singaporeans. I suggest that it should include, besides a citizen of Singapore, a permanent resident of Singapore also unless he is already exempted by the Minister for Home Affairs under section 56 of the said Act.

It is noted that section 6(3)(e) is being amended to reduce the severity of punishment from a fine of $4,000 to

Column: 1092

$2,000 and imprisonment of 12 months to 6 months. This is one occasion when Parliament is being more considerate in its punishment by reducing the same.

The new section 6A imposes on the non-citizen parents of a child born in Singapore to renew after 42 days of the birth of the child the special pass for the child to remain in Singapore. This appears to be harsh for parents or one of the parents who is working in Singapore, say, on an employment pass or a work permit.

Sub-section (5) imposes on the parents the burden of ensuring the child does not remain in Singapore. This, in reality, would result in the separation of the child from his or her parents. The strong arm of the law needs to temper this harsh imposition with compassion and humanity. It is therefore hoped that the Controller of Immigration would not be draconian or too strict in his approach to granting extension of time of the special pass.

Sir, the new section 11A imposes on persons who have ceased to be a citizen of Singapore to leave Singapore within 24 hours after he ceases to be a citizen of Singapore. Why such a harsh timeline? The Controller of Immigration should allow at least 14 days for the non-citizen to organise his life and make necessary arrangements for him to leave Singapore. These are the people who are going to migrate and it is important that they leave Singapore with fond memories or at least very little negative thoughts about our nation. Any harsh treatment of these people would not assist in them being good ambassadors of Singapore when they are abroad.

The punishment seems to be very harsh. Why should we want to send him to prison and, worse still, cane him for such an offence? The modern trend in punishment is to try and avoid any form of caning to be imposed by a court of

Column: 1093

law. Caning may be contrary to the modern trend in human rights. Caning should not be a form of punishment in our modern world. The sentencing system should be less harsh and I submit that imprisonment as a form of punishment should suffice.

Next, new section 38A. Sir, would it be prudent to have only certain officers, say, above the rank of Sergeant to be provided with arms and ammunition? Alternatively, the Ministry must ensure that they are properly trained and disciplined in their use of arms and ammunition so that there is no scope for abuse.

On new section 47A, the creditors of the prohibited immigrant is now left with having to queue up and having a claim inferior to that of the Immigration Department. The creditor may make his claim within six years from the date of the seizure. He has no right to garnish, attach, sequestrate or levy against the prohibited immigrant's monies which are seized by the Immigration Department. It could be argued that this is unfair to a creditor whose rights are being overridden by the claims of the Immigration Department.

The amended section 49 empowers the court to order a forfeiture of the vehicle where an offence under the Immigration Act is proven. There may be innocent owners who might have given their consent to drivers who might commit offences without the owner's knowledge. It is hoped that in such cases the innocent owners' vehicles would not be forfeited. The power to order a forfeiture by the court should be exercised very cautiously and sparingly, lest it offends against the right of ownership of an innocent vehicle owner.

Sir, the new section 55(1)( ga ) provides for the taking or recording of any

Column: 1094

personal identifier which is currently defined in section 2 as amended. However, the new section 61A states that the Schedule may be amended, added to or varied by the Minister. This means that, besides any finger, thumb or palmar impressions, any photograph or other image of a person's face and shoulders, the Minister may go beyond, eg, taking of blood samples, DNA testing, etc. I hope there will be respect of one's privacy.

The amended section 57 is to be welcomed, as it now reduces the harshness of the previous law. The amendments give the prosecution and the court more discretion and flexibility. And this intention of Parliament must be exercised generously by the prosecution and the court, having regard to some unfortunate cases which were heard earlier in our courts where the courts had little discretion in the sentencing of convicted persons under the Immigration Act.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, first, I thank all Members who have spoken, all of whom have supported the Bill.

Let me first address the key points with respect to the amended section 57 on harbouring. First, let me reiterate the point that the immigration offender situation in Singapore remains serious. The numbers have come down. Indeed we are heartened by that, but that is because everybody has chipped in. We have sent out a very clear message through legislation and publicity, and that the fact is everyone can do a part. As I have said in my main speech, the numbers have dropped. In the year 2000, we had 16,500. Last year, we had 11,800. But for the first six months of this year, the number crept up slightly to 6,300. Therefore, this is the context in which we move these amendments - that we must still remain resolute in our fight against

Column: 1095

the immigration offender problem in Singapore.

Sir, some Members have spoken as to why we do not want to moderate our approach that we have taken where there is a presumption that operates against the landlord and then it is up to him to rebut the presumption. I think it makes a lot of sense to retain this framework. Firstly, because, as I have said, the problem is a serious one; therefore, we do not want to throw away the framework that has worked well for so long. Also because Singaporeans are familiar with this framework. I am sure Members will be mindful that what we have done is to have moderated this framework. Hence, whilst currently there is a presumption of knowledge, it is up to the landlord to rebut the presumption fully by doing all three checks. Under the amendments, we have nuanced the approach. And now there is no presumption of knowledge but there is a presumption of reckless harbouring and negligent harbouring. And when the foreign tenant who is an immigration offender is shown to be on the premises, it is up to the landlord to rebut the presumption in a way which makes a lot of sense. Because if you are a landlord who is going to let out your premises to a foreigner, the first thing you would want to do is to check his status. You would check his papers. In fact, we are helping these landlords to do this by stating very clearly in the Act what he should do - check his visit pass or work permit, check the particulars against the particulars in his passport and, for good measure, check with either the employer or since the year 2000, we have offered an alternative check of checking either with ICA or MOM.

Therefore, this is the context in which the framework works - the presumption that we introduced in 1984 and due diligence requirements, first, in 1993 requiring the landlord just to check the travel documents and then in 1998, we

Column: 1096

amended that and made it watertight; we made it clearer; we spelt out the three checks very clearly. So there is no doubt as to what a landlord needs to do. I am sure Members will realise that over the past 5-7 years, there has been wide publicity on these due diligence checks. In fact, house-owners would have received booklets from the ICA. Originally, it was done in conjunction with IRAS. Now, separately, ICA will send them. And there are also pamphlets which are sent to house-owners. Posters are also put up in various places including Town Councils' notice boards and HDB's notice boards and, of course, through the public media, through Crime Watch, on the radio and indeed in the press reports that some of the Members have mentioned.

In response to any call to change the basic framework, I will say no. Let us stick to this framework but recognising that there can be some harshness in some cases and recognising that, like Mr Ravindran has said, there is very often a matrix of facts, a one-size-fits-all approach may not be the best approach. Now, we are introducing this lower limb approach, a graduated approach, where up there is the recalcitrant landlord or one who knowingly harbours an immigration offender for which the current punishment will apply and I think rightly so, because it is a serious offence. And to respond to Mr Arthur Fong and Mr Chandra Mohan, yes, we will retain the mandatory minimum offence which we have in Singapore but for which we will only invoke and use for the very serious offence. And I will say that if you harbour an immigration offender knowingly or you are recalcitrant, that is a serious offence. But below that, we will have two other categories of reckless harbouring and negligent harbouring.

On Mr Ravindran's point whether we should do more to help landlords discover the status of a tenant who submits forged documents, first, let me say that, really,

Column: 1097

the task of landlords is not to discover the real status of the tenant. In the context of these checks, it is to ensure that they do not fall foul of the law

and, at the same time, help Singapore keep the immigration offender problem at bay. Because, if all landlords do the checks properly, then illegal immigrants and immigration offenders will find it very difficult to find a shelter over their heads. So, that is the first point. And, in fact, this point is also related to the point on housing agents where we have now extended it to not just housing agents but all middlemen. Mr Ravindran is right that all middlemen who are involved in the letting out of the premises can be liable. But the point is that the more people who are responsible, the more people will check, then the harder it is for immigration offenders to find accommodation in Singapore.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr S Iswaran) in the Chair]

5.30 pm

Back to Mr Ravindran's point about photographs. I will ask ICA and MOM to take a look at that, although, from the statistics that I have, the number of landlords who were proffered forged documents is actually very low. In fact, a lot of those landlords who fell foul of the law either did not check or just carried out partial or cursory checks, sometimes checking just photocopied documents, which is not good enough. And that is the point that Mr Arthur Fong also talked about as regards his constituent. He may have been shown forged documents, but he did not go on to do the three checks. He may have looked at it and felt that it was genuine. But the point is, regardless of what he is proffered, do the three checks. I think that will help him when he is being investigated by the Police.

The other point, of course, is once you have photographs, it may also lead to

Column: 1098

some landlords feeling that they have to do more. I think that is an important point to make. We are not overloading landlords to do more. The basic checks will remain the same. But if we put up photographs and these are helpful to some landlords, that will help them ease their mind. This is something which MOM and ICA will have to study because there are cost implications. You have to convert all your photographs into hard databases or put them online. And then we have to balance it to see whether, in terms of the framework that I mentioned just now, the whole purpose of the checks, will putting photographs indeed aid this process adequately enough to offset the cost incurred. That is a consideration we will have to make.

Mr Ravindran asked whether when we have this new approach, public prosecutors will therefore charge more rather than warn. He mentioned other cases when maybe, in the past, somebody had been warned, but now with this nuanced approach, more may be charged. Let me, first of all, say that the public prosecutor examines every case on its own facts. Every case is very carefully reviewed against the guidelines and, I think, Members will appreciate that because we have finetuned the guidelines over the years, currently only about 50% are charged. Therefore, there is some flexibility there, but not enough flexibility, because the current divide is really not satisfactory where, on the one hand, either you charge, and if you charge, the person found guilty goes to jail mandatorily, or you let him off with a stern warning. Therefore, based on what we are doing, really, the ends of justice will be better served if there is a continuum where, on the one hand, you could be a recalcitrant knowing harbourer; and on the other hand, the innocent, the very careful and diligent landlord who did the three proper checks and in between, as Mr Ravindran has said, there is a matrix of facts. So we will let the AGC

Column: 1099

look at the facts which have occurred in a particular case and see how the ends of justice can be served by preferring a charge along this continuum. So, it is not for me to therefore constrain the public prosecutor's hand in deciding the case.

What I can say is that now, with this framework, we will have a more flexible model to work with. It is the same thing that I would say with regard to how the courts sentence. I think Mr Ahmad Khalis urges the courts not to, I suppose, be overly strict in terms of applying the tariff. As a lawyer, he knows that the courts have a tariff for a particular offence and then, depending on the facts of a particular case, the sentence will be meted out according to this tariff. I think, in Singapore, neither Parliament nor the Executive will interfere with how the judges run the courts. But what we are doing today, I am sure, will send a signal to all Singaporeans and also to the courts as to the approach that we are now taking with regard to this offence.

Will these amendments impact housing brokers and agents? I certainly hope so, and not only them but other people who may be involved in the renting out of premises, and in this regard publicity is important. I think Mr Ravindran has asked for more of that. As I mentioned in my speech, we already had dialogue sessions with the relevant agencies, SISV, and Institute of Estate Agents who, in fact, have said that they will help us publicise the checks to their members. I am sure that other professional groups can also do a part. And, really, I think the message that I want to make today is, we all do our part and not just leave it to the landlords. Everybody has a part to play in curbing illegal immigrants, some of whom are very safely ensconced in premises. If we all do a part henceforth, I think the numbers will further be reduced.

Let me now just touch on one or two other points which Members have raised.

Column: 1100

Mr Chandra Mohan made this point about children born to foreign parents in Singapore and also the point about former citizens who surrendered their Singapore citizenship, which I think Mr Ahmad Khalis made, and asked whether now it is in one case overly strict, 42 days, and then in another case, 24 hours for them to submit papers for their passes.

Let me put this in perspective. Actually there is no substantive amendment to the policy. For example, for ex-citizens, they can continue to come to Singapore on social visit passes or continue to work here, if they qualify, on work passes. Like I said in my main speech, these are really administrative amendments to fill up a lacuna in the law which is this. Under the Immigration Act currently, a person who enters Singapore will need to have a pass, but a child who is born in Singapore and an ex-Singaporean who becomes a foreigner, because he has surrendered his Singapore citizenship, technically are in Singapore but do not enter Singapore. Because there is no physical entry, the Act currently does not apply to them. So, basically, what we are doing is we are plugging this loophole and putting it into a law this requirement for the parents to submit an application for a pass, and 42 days really is enough. Because, on the ground, what happens is that in a hospital when a child is born, the parents will know that there is a need for them to regularise the child's stay. So, after this Bill is passed, this will be made known to them. Basically, it will entail going to the foreign embassy to get the child's papers done and then going to ICA to regularise the stay. So, 42 days is a sufficient period; the same thing with 24 hours. Because, on the ground, what happens is that most ex-Singaporeans actually surrender their Singapore citizenship when they are overseas. Some come to Singapore to do it. But many who come in already have foreign passports. So when they come in, a "social visit

Column: 1101

pass" is already stamped on their passports.

Sir, the numbers who retain their Singapore passports and come in with Singapore passports are actually very small. But for these people who go to ICA to surrender their Singapore citizenship, what this amendment will entail is that they will be told: "Please go and apply for the appropriate pass or permit." So, 24 hours is good enough for that. Because he would have come in on a Singapore passport but, once he surrenders his citizenship, he cannot use the Singapore passport which he had already surrendered. So, basically, he goes to another floor in the ICA building to submit an application for a pass to remain in Singapore. So it is not a problem.

On requiring vehicles to stop at immigration clearance, first of all, I am very grateful for Mr Khalis account. It shows that our security agencies are alert. I hope his relative did not receive too much of a shock, but it is a good sharing. Of course, I must apologise if there had been any confusion or a gap in terms of the signages at the Causeway. I am told that, in fact, many of us who use the Causeway will probably testify that our checkpoints, in fact, are already well organised, and people basically do know where to go. But no one is perfect. So we can see what more can be done in terms of signages or other signs.

On officers being armed, I must thank Mr Arthur Fong for his strong support for ICA officers to be armed. Indeed, he has hit the nail on the head, which is that ICA officers do an important job, but sometimes they are not fully appreciated. And, sometimes, their job can be risky, whether it is enforcement or whether it is at the border checkpoint, for example, or the sea-lanes and our coastal areas,

Column: 1102

keeping out illegal offenders. But my assurance is that no officer who need not be armed will be armed. Every situation of an officer being armed will be carefully considered. He will be fully trained. There will be annual classification shoots for him to make sure he still has the skills and there will be protocols on how to use it right. I think we should not limit the rank. Mr Mohan asked, why only the rank of Serjeant and above? I think it depends on the role and function, his task and, most importantly, that he is trained, and therefore is accountable.

On the seizure of monies provision, actually this is not a very critical situation on the ground because basically we have taken this amendment from the Limitation Act which also allows within six years for a person to make a claim. In reality, the monies in the possession of these immigration offenders, many of whom are, for example, vice workers, whom we repatriate, and we do it quite quickly. Therefore, we find that, in fact, most of them are very happy to go home. So, whatever monies that are in their possession will be handed over and used to help pay for the cheapest airfare. So, really, the need to invoke this provision is very minimal. It is also quite unlikely that anybody will turn up later and say, "I have an association with this immigration offender who has my money." But we should provide for it because it is in the Limitation Act. Therefore, we put it in.

On the forfeiture of vehicles, a point that Mr Mohan made, let me assure him that every case will be considered on its own facts. In fact, the guidelines were tightened in 1996 so that the departments, when making a recommendation to the public prosecutor to forfeit the vehicle, must justify it, and the public prosecutor must be convinced. So AGC will act as a common point to determine that on the facts, it is reasonable and fair to forfeit the vehicle. Therefore, in the

Column: 1103

case, for example, which he mentioned, if a person lends a vehicle to another person and there is no reason for him, having known that person and having carried out sufficient checks as to why he wants the vehicle, and he tells him a very plausible story to suspect that he would use it for some crime which makes the car liable to forfeiture, the public prosecutor will consider all these facts in deciding whether or not to forfeit.

As to the Schedule, just a short point. I am sure Mr Mohan will realise that we do need flexibility in the Schedule because it is a moving game, and technology changes all the time. So we add biometric identifiers as and when necessary. We leave it fluid because the Minister may have to make his amendments quickly to meet any security exigencies. So, currently, we will take the fingerprints and photographs and, in the future, maybe iris and other technology. These are the points that Members have made.

Mr Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani: Mr Deputy Speaker, may I seek a clarification as to whether the Minister would consider perhaps in the near future absolving landlords from further searches if their attorneys or their agents have done so.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: It is an important point. Sir, we have always taken the approach that the landlords should be responsible for whom they admit into the premises.

It is also for their own safety because, after all, they are the landlords. They may have an intermediary dealing with the tenant. But I am sure they will want to know who they are dealing with. Therefore, even now, as we also make housing agents liable, we should not therefore absolve the landlords. Let us keep the primary responsibility with the landlords so that you have more people doing the checks. I think that is the basic point I make, whether it is a housing agent or somebody else, the more who are

Column: 1104

responsible for checking, I think the greater the likelihood that any immigration offender will be found out. The point is, if the housing agent does carry out a careful check, that will already put off the immigration offender. That is the key point. So if a landlord engages a housing agent to rent out his premises, the key point really is that the housing agent must be responsible and because he is a professional, he does it as his business, he will know what to do. If he does it, he will be able to fob off the illegal offender. But, as a landlord, I think he should also take it upon himself to do the check, to satisfy himself that the housing agent has not been careless. So that is the position I think we should take, and we will see how the new situation works out.

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. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].

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