MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE - FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1986 TO 31ST MARCH, 1987
Yes, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will deal with some of the points raised by hon. Members relating particularly to immigration, citizenship, fire service, civil defence, internal security, and my colleague, the Minister of State for Home Affairs, will deal with the other points which were raised. Sir, may I take the points raised under Immigration first. Let me preface my remarks by making some general observations on our immigration policy and the considerations that inevitably must go into shaping our immigration policy. I understand perfectly well what the Member for Changkat said in the beginning of her statement. She said that she had many cases at the meet-the-people sessions. This has been told to me by other Members and I myself know it because, don't forget, I am also an MP. Perhaps it is even more difficult for the Minister of State for Home Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs in dealing with immigration problems with their constituents. Other Members can say they will write to the Minister for Home Affairs, but it is not an answer which the Minister for Home Affairs can easily give! Sir, our immigration policy must be shaped by the constraints, the problems and circumstances of our own country. Certain key statistics already indicate the dimensions of our problem. All of us know the size of our country, the available resources, the density of population, the scarcity of land which has been outlined by the Minister for National Development before. As a backdrop, last year more than 198,000 people applied for extension of the various passes. They are potentially long-term social visit pass holders and potential de facto permanent residents. More than 11,000 persons applied for permanent residence. Even though the Member for Anson paints Singapore as a terrible police state, there are 11,000 persons who want to be permanent residents, who are not fleeing away from the so-called police state. As it is, we have about 130,000 permanent residents, each one of them a potential citizen. Last year there were more than 46,000 persons who overstayed illegally and they tried desperately to stay on in Singapore, even if it meant illegal presence. The ideal perhaps is to take a humanitarian approach to our problems: open the floodgates, let everyone who wants to become a permanent resident and citizen become a permanent resident and citizen. But every decision that we take on permanent residence or citizenship has implications for the rest of society. It has implications for the rest of Singaporeans, the vast majority of our citizens, because permanent residence and citizenship bring along with it not only rights but it also brings privileges to education, housing, medical and other facilities. When it comes to citizenship, it also brings along with it political rights of voting, standing for elections, and so on. I would like Members to bear in mind these parameters, the realistic dimensions of our problems. I therefore do not hide the fact that we have a strict immigration policy but I make no apology for it because this is necessary by the very nature of our circumstances, our constraints and our problems. It would be disastrous to take a purely humanitarian approach to our immigration policy and to let in all who apply. We must and we will be cautious. Permanent residence and citizenship is not a right. It is a privilege. Persons will be assessed on the merits of each case. There is a balance between considerations of whether they will be an asset, useful to Singapore, together with considerations of compassion, connections with Singapore, family roots and so on. This is the backdrop which we must never lose sight of, for it is very easy and tempting to talk about a very liberal policy on immigration. Let me now answer some of the specific points raised. The Member for Toa Payoh and the Member for Eunos asked me to shed some light on the problem of illegal immigrants and illegal overstayers. Perhaps that is a good point for me to start for it shows not only the dimension of the problems that we are having but it will also explain to all why is it that the Government, the Immigration Department and the Police have to take a very strict view on immigration matters and on illegal immigrants. As of 16th March, 1986, there were 715 persons in our jail for overstaying, for being illegal immigrants. The number would have been more had we not repatriated others. There is an average of about 60 persons arrested weekly for illegal overstaying or illegal entry, and about an average of 32 are prosecuted weekly. Those then are the stark figures. Here again, bear in mind, the Member for Anson says we are a police state, but all these people want to come to Singapore even at the risk of arrest and prosecution. 715 persons in our jails. Last year over 46,000 persons were detected for overstaying. Of them, more than 4,500 were arrested as they had overstayed a long time. As to what action is being taken on illegal workers, Sir, I am glad to say that the Immigration, Police, Ministry of Labour are very efficient. They have combined operations and it is very difficult for an illegal overstayer to escape detection and apprehension for too long. In December 1984, Members will recall that we amended the relevant laws to provide for enhanced penalties not only for illegal overstaying and illegal entry but also to penalize persons who harbour and employ illegal overstayers and illegal entrants. Action by Police, Immigration and Ministry of Labour will continue. Both overstayers and harbourers, including employers of illegal overstayers, must know, as they already know it, that it does not pay to engage in this activity for they cannot escape apprehension and prosecution. If I may turn to the points raised by the Member for Changkat. She has raised several issues. First, she has advocated that the Ministry should devise a special scheme for artists and talented persons and that our approach should not be too narrow. Indeed, we have considered this and I would say that our approach is not narrow because there is a special scheme for those who are artistically inclined and outstanding in their own fields. It is not just MTI or PIPS or CATS which are the vetting authorities. There are other vetting authorities, for example, Ministry of Community Development, SBC, Ministry of Education, who are consulted in these cases, and I would like to say in response to her comment that even religious workers are considered for permanent residence. As regards aged parents, while each case is considered on its own merits, I would like to inform her that we are sympathetic as far as possible, especially if the applicant has no other children to rely upon except the sponsor in that case. As for brothers and sisters, our policy is that if the person concerned is the only non- citizen in the family and is under 21, we are quite liberal and sympathetic. If the person is already of age, then we would want the person to qualify on his own merits, and here again we do not take an unsympathetic view if the person is the only non-citizen in the family. As far as allowing persons, whether married or otherwise, to be here on long-term social visit pass, we do allow them extensions. Often these extensions are given up to three months in one year. Our concern will be really whether or not the grant of long-term social visit pass or repeated extensions will lead to a de facto permanent residence situation. That is one consequence we want to avoid, and for cases which she mentioned where extensions are necessary to allow persons to make arrangements we do give special consideration to such cases and we will continue to do so. I understand her poignant call for equality between male and female spouses. Maybe she is right that this distinction between applicants for citizenship or permanent residence, male spouses and female spouses, has its origin in some peculiar aspect of Asian culture which decrees that the woman must follow the man. I would not like to completely extinguish her hopes for eventual change in this alleged discrimination! She should continue the fight and perhaps with more Members of the fairer sex in our Chamber they can win the hearts and minds of the policy-makers. But let me caution here that our understanding of the position in countries where they have taken a very liberal view on this is that it has led to an increase in the number of marriages of convenience. So we would want to watch out for that. She gave an example of a situation where the husband has been here working and providing for the family for 13 to 18 years. We will be prepared to look at this case, not necessarily on the grounds of marriage, but on the merits of the case and the fact that he has been here for such a long period of time. She made references, I believe, to HDB and so on. This underlines the point that I made, ie, we must bear in mind that permanent residence and citizenship has privileges including that of housing and so on. But I would think that it is a wrong approach in shaping immigration policies to grant permanent residence because that person wants a particular privilege. That would be a wrong approach. In that case, then lots of people will be knocking at the doors of the Government wanting privileges and concessions which they would get only if they become permanent residents or citizens. I believe I have touched on most of the salient points. While we are on immigration, the other day the Member for Anson raised the same points which were dealt with when he asked supplementary questions with regard to the question the Member for Clementi asked on spouses. Mr Speaker, Sir, what I said the other day was that the practice in most countries of the world is to make a distinction between grant of citizenship or permanent residence on the one hand and grant of entry and immigration on the other. That was what I said, and he can check the Hansard. My Ministry has consulted the embassies of as many countries as it could - Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Brunei, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Japan, Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Germany, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Pakistan. My Ministry asked whether there is any automatic right of entry on the basis of marriage, and the answer is no. The only country where the answer was yes, was Switzerland. The Member for Anson talked about violation of fundamental human rights. The point I would like to make is that both the Registry of Marriages as well as the Office of the Work Permit, Commissioner for Employment, make it very clear to the parties before they marry that marriage does not confer automatic rights of entry or permanent residence. If I may quote from the letter which is issued at the Registry of Marriages. I will not read the entire text: 'This is to inform you that your marriage to a Singapore citizen/permanent resident will not automatically confer on you the right to reside in Singapore permanently. Similarly, it will not automatically entitle you to the issue or renewal of any immigration pass to remain or work in Singapore. The purpose of this notice is to inform you the position concerning the issue of entry permit for permanent residence or any other immigration passes to work or stay in Singapore.' And the party acknowledges receipt of this letter. Similarly, in work permit cases, where approval is given for marriage by the Commissioner for Employment, a similar letter is sent before marriage. It states, inter alia: 'Please note that the approval of marriage does not confer on the applicant the right to permanent residence in Singapore. Your continued stay in Singapore will normally be allowed if you are in employment.' So, Sir, in view of this fact that parties prior to a marriage are placed on notice, I do not see how there can be a so-called "violation of fundamental human right". Sir, may I now turn to the question of fire services which was raised by both the Member for Toa Payoh and the Member for Jalan Kayu. The number of fires in 1985 was 5,384. It was higher than in 1984 but lower than in 1981, 1982 or 1983. But the number of deaths in 1985 was high - 23. Many of the fires involved old buildings in which there were many people living in a rather congested situation. The Members asked what would be the strategy and approach of the Fire Service. Basically, Sir, the approach of the Fire Department is not very different from the approach of the Police in preventing crime, and tackling crime. The key really is to try to prevent fires because once a fire occurs it is really a question of trying to limit the damage and put out the fire as soon as possible. If prevention is the key, then our strategy is to mobilize and harness the cooperation of the people as widely as possible. This means to increase public knowledge on the do's and don'ts, and to increase public understanding of what is necessary to prevent fires. In this regard let me say that several steps have been taken. First, a National Fire Prevention Council has been formed and the members will be announced shortly. The purpose of the Council is to promote public awareness of fire safety and concern about outbreaks of fire and to secure public cooperation in establishing proper safeguards against loss of lives and properties in cases of fire. We hope that membership of the Council will be such that it will harness the support of the private sector, insurance sector, construction sector, and so on. Furthermore, in areas which are particularly vulnerable to fires, we are assisting the grassroots organizations there in establishing volunteer fire squads which will have the function of early alert and putting out incipient fires before the fire engines arrive. One has been formed in Chinatown and, if successful, we hope to form squads in other areas. We will also mount and step up publicity over television, press and other media to spread the message on the do's and dont's. Fire safety exhibitions will also be held. Finally, together with Civil Defence, we will encourage as many people to purchase a BCF fire extinguisher. On the operational side, plans are in the pipeline to build five new fire stations and to relocate three others which will bring about a 15-fire station configuration which will help to reduce response time. As far as the query about arson is concerned, arson has been suspected in some but not most of the cases, and investigations are going on. The Member for Jalan Kayu will be pleased to know that the Police and Fire Officers have been undergoing specialized fire and arson investigations. Turning now to Civil Defence. I thank the Member for Jalan Kayu for his words of appreciation. I would really not want to single out any one particular group or unit for the effort in rescue operations when the hotel in Serangoon Road collapsed, because I think it was truly teamwork which we can all be proud of. It was indeed a very moving scene to see so many people - Singaporeans, foreigners, public sector, private sector, service personnel, non-service personnel, individuals, organizations working as a team, tirelessly and fearlessly, over so many days and nights, and many of them, in fact, risked their lives. I think it is a team effort in which the Civil Defence forces and volunteers also played their role. The Member also asked whether recognition will be given and the answer is yes. The Government has decided that recognition will be given to individuals and organizations who were directly involved in the rescue operations. A ceremony will be organized on a suitable date by Government to give commendations. Details as to the date, the function and the nature of the awards will be announced later. As regards his comments on sustaining the interest of Civil Defence, I have taken note of his proposal for telematch. We will give it consideration. But he is right that Civil Defence is a long-term effort and we must find ways and means of sustaining the interest over a long period of time as more and more volunteers will be coming on to the scene. Training them in basic Civil Defence skills alone may not harness their continuing interest. Perhaps they will have to develop into a separate grassroots organization of their own, with their own camaraderie and special ethos. But he is right that Civil Defence is an integral part of Total Defence. I think we all would have wished that the hotel collapse could have been avoided but he may be right that that unfortunate event might have brought to the minds of all of us how important it is to take Civil Defence seriously, which means not only the SCDF but all of us have to play a part in understanding the importance of Civil Defence, and taking part seriously in exercises and drills which are being held from time to time. Now I come to the point made by the Member for Potong Pasir. All of a sudden he has become an expert on communist insurrection! I do not know whether he listened to the comprehensive statement which I made on 31st August 1985 on the question of Chia Thye Poh and where I distributed fairly detailed papers to Members of the House. If he was here, obviously he did not listen, because if he had listened, he would not have made the point that he mentioned just now. His point is that there is no communist danger in Singapore, no possibility of communist insurrection or communist insurgency. I would prefer to rely on a political scientist such as the Member for Serangoon Gardens. Has not the Member for Potong Pasir heard of the Voice of Malayan Democracy, which is the CPM radio station which broadcasts even now? Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir said that the Internal Security Act should be abolished. I dread really the day if he became the Minister for Home Affairs and abolished the Internal Security Act.