Hansard, 1989-01-26

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, Singapore acceded to the Convention in International Trade in Endangered Species, otherwise known as CITES, on 30 November 1986. The Endangered Species (Import and Export) Bill 1989 before this House is to enable the Primary Production Department (PPD) to effectively control the trade in endangered species to meet CITES's requirements. The aim of CITES is the long-term protection of wild fauna and flora. The Convention recognizes that while individual nations are the best protectors of their own wildlife, international cooperation is essential for the protection of certain species of wildlife against over-exploitation through international trade. Sir, in short, wildlife conservation transcends national boundaries. Singapore shares the concern of CITES member countries for the survival of endangered wildlife. Although Singapore has no indigenous wildlife to protect, being an important port of call and a major trading centre, we are conscious of Singapore's role in helping to control international trade in endangered species. Singapore has, therefore, acceded to CITES. In fact, even before acceding to CITES, we have already on our own initiative taken action to ban the trade in rhinocerous horns, orang-utans and monkey-eating eagles. These three are highly endangered species in our region. Sir, about 2,400 species of animals and 30,000 species of plants are protected under CITES. These species are listed in the three appendices to the Convention depending on the degree of protection required. With Singapore's accession to CITES, traders have to obtain permits from Primary Production Department for the import and export of these species. Since our accession to CITES, Primary Production Department, together with the Trade Development Board and the Customs and Excise Department, has been enforcing as much of the CITES's requirements as possible by using existing legislation such as the Wild Animals and Birds Act, the Animals and Birds Act and the Fisheries Act. However, these Acts are intended primarily to deal with disease control, general welfare of animals, and the protection of wildlife in Singapore. They are not enacted for the purpose of controlling trade in endangered species. For example, the Animals and Birds Act empowers PPD to issue licence for the import of animals and birds on the basis of health requirements and not whether the species is endangered. Furthermore, these Acts do not cover trade in molluscs, reptiles, amphibians, insects and plants. These existing Acts also do not provide for powers to require the marking and labelling of certain animal parts and derivatives as spelt out under CITES. They also do not empower Primary Production Department to issue possession licences, another of CITES's requirements. Hence, new legislation are needed to be enacted for this purpose. Sir, in summary, the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Bill requires any person who wishes to import or export any of the endangered species listed in the three Schedules to the Bill to apply to the Director of Primary Production for a permit. It also empowers the Director to refuse a permit or to issue it with conditions. To facilitate enforcement, the Bill also provides for powers of search and arrest. These provisions will enable PPD to exert effective control on the trade in endangered species. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Endangered Species (Import and Export) Bill. As a result of the development of land, pollution of the environment and the relentless and illegal poaching and killing by man for selfish interests, many species of wildlife are facing extinction. From documentary films we see baby sealions with their skins peeled off sprawling over snow-clad landscape. There are people who for the sake of the small rhinoceros horn would kill a big rhino weighing several tons, a species which is also facing extinction. This cruel action is abhorrent to those who love nature. Although the promulgation of this Act does not mean that such wildlife will be protected, it means at least that we have joined the ranks of those who care for the protection of rare and endangered species, thereby augmenting their ranks. I recall that not long ago the export of certain tropical fish was criticized by some countries, because this type of provision had not been promulgatedyet. I hope with the promulgation of this Act it may help the trade in the export of tropical fish. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have read this Bill several times over . I have certain questions to ask the Minister. First, clause 9 states that an authorized officer may without warrant enter and search any place on which he has a reasonable suspicion, while clause 3 states that any public officer may become an authorized officer if he is duly authorized by the Director in writing. In my opinion, this authorized officer may be a junior officer. Nevertheless, he is given such great power to enter and search any place of suspicion without warrant, to the extent of breaking open any door or window. I personally feel rather uneasy about such authorized power. I would like to ask the Minister in cases of abuse of power, whether there is any measure by which there can be a check on such abuse. Further, I would like to ask the Minister whether it would not be better for the officer to apply for a warrant before taking such action, so as to better safeguard the interest of the public. Second, many Chinese savour exotic game delicacies and take to health food, which include fruits and game like ant-eaters, turtles, lizards, crocodiles, monkeys and snakes, etc. Some food stalls and delicatessens are dependent on trading these animals for a living. In Chinese medicine, body parts of some game animals such as rhinoceros horn, antelope horn, crocodile meat, etc, are used as ingredients. Here in Singapore, there are crocodile farms breeding crocodiles for sale of their meat and skin, some of which are also for export. After the Act is promulgated, what effect will it have on the business of these people?

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I must thank the Member for Chua Chu Kang, Dr Low Seow Chay, for his support of this Bill. Sir, the power to enter, search and arrest without warrant is not unique to the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Bill. Such powers can be found in a variety of other legislations. These include the Animals and Birds Act, Fisheries Act, Environmental (Public Health) Act, Control of Import and Export Act. May I draw Members' attention to yesterday's Straits Times report, on the front page, of the discovery of an illegal food factory. Sir, I understand that the Environment Ministry officials in this particular case invoked Section 4 of the Sale of Food Act which provides for the power to enter and inspect premises without warrant. I believe timely action is necessary in this case. Such timely actions may well have saved thousands of Singaporeans from serious food poisoning. Therefore, the power of entry, search and even arrest is necessary in such situations. Why is it then necessary to have it in the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Bill? The reason is that the trade in endangered species is very lucrative. It is well organized and it is carried out surreptitiously. Enforcement authorities must be able to act quickly in order to secure evidence. Any delay in obtaining warrant of arrest may allow the traders to escape prosecution by removing the controlled animals or animal parts. The Member asked whether such powers will be abused by a junior officer who is authorized under the Bill. Sir, let me give the Member an example. The Animals and Birds Act has been in force for 23 years. It has the same power of entry and search without warrant. The Fisheries Act has been around for 19 years. Similar powers are also provided for. There has not been any abuse of the powers of entry, search and arrest without warrant. I think this is a track record which should reassure the Member for Chua Chu Kang. Sir, before the powers can be used by the authorized officer, there must be reason to suspect that an offence is being committed under the Act. These powers cannot be used indiscriminately. Suppose one of the authorized officers turns out to be an errant officer, suppose one of them abuses his powers, let me assure the Member that every case of action under these powers will be reported to the Director of Primary Production Department and to the Ministry. Any errant officer, who misused or abused the power granted to him by the Director of Primary Production, will very soon have his wings clipped and put out of action quickly. Sir, the Member also spoke about the concern of some Singaporeans who have a liking for dining on exotic animals. He also wanted to know what is the impact of this Bill on traditional Chinese cures and medicines. Sir, not all wildlife and animal parts used as Chinese delicacies or for medicinal purposes are endangered species protected by CITES. Certain species of snakes, deer, buffalo and many others are not threatened with extinction and are thus not on CITES' list. Even for species protected by CITES, there are variations in the degree of control. Some species are less threatened and can still be traded, provided they are accompanied by CITES documentations. Hence, the custom of eating certain types of exotic animals is not likely to become an endangered custom, provided these animals are not highly protected. Sir, in the case of traditional medicine, there has been a steady move towards using alternative or substitutes in Chinese medicines. As I said in my Second Reading speech, even before we acceded to CITES, we have on our own prohibited the trade in rhinoceros horns. The Straits Times reported on the 25th October 1986 that very few Chinese sinsehs are prescribing scrapings of rhinoceros horns to their patients. This has been so since the trade has been prohibited. They have switched to using Siberian antelope horns. This shows that alternatives are readily available for traditional cures. Hence, the Endangered Species Bill will not have an adverse impact on the use of animals and animal products in Chinese cuisine or medicine. Sir, the Member also wanted to know the impact of this Bill on those who are farming crocodiles or those who sell articles made from crocodile skins. In order to allow crocodile farmers to set up their breeding and rearing programme, Singapore has entered reservations on the two most common farm species of crocodiles in Singapore, namely, Crocodilus porosus and Crocodilus novaguinea novaguinea. Crocodile farmers can, therefore, continue to be able to freely obtain stocks of these crocodiles for breeding and rearing and exporting these crocodiles and their skins. In fact, farming of wildlife helps to prevent their extinction. For example, the Singapore Zoological Garden has successfully bred 15 out of 28 endangered species in its collection. For this reason, crocodile farmers should make every effort to establish breeding and rearing farms. Sir, I believe I have covered the points raised by the Member for Chua Chu Kang.

Sir, I rise to support this Bill. I must congratulate the Government ---

Mr Chiam, can I point out that under the Standing Orders, after the Minister has given his reply, the debate, in fact, has ended. You should have spoken before the Minister gave his reply.

I thought this is important. I just want to congratulate the Government for enacting this law. Because Singapore does not really benefit by enacting a law to be in line with the international law on this matter, ie, to give effect to the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species.

Mr Chiam, I cannot permit you to make a speech at this stage.

Mr Chiam can speak during the Committee stage.

All right.

I am much obliged, Sir.

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. - [Dr Lee Boon Yang]. Bill considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 22 -

I am much obliged to you, Sir. I support the Bill and, as I said, I would like to congratulate the Government for enacting this law because we really do not economically benefit from it in any way as Singapore has got no endangered species.

One Opposition Member!

Sir, although we derive no economic benefit, we do have a moral duty to make sure that endangered species in other countries are also preserved. I notice in the law that we do not allow the conveyance of endangered species through Singapore. This is a good move. I think we should not be held to be accessories to traders in endangered species. Sir, I saw a wildlife film last night which was filmed in Australia.

Mr Chiam, can I point out that at Committee stage, we are not to go into the principles and the general merits of the Bill.

All right, Sir. I think I have made my point. Thank you. Clauses 1 to 22 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. First to Third Schedules inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment, read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 12.52 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 1989 gives legislative effect to seven income tax concessions announced in the 1988 Budget Statement. Opportunity is also taken to include three other amendments to the Act. The first budget concession allows the following selected services to deduct twice their approved research and development expenses incurred on any research and development projects: (a) computer software; (b) information services; (c) agrotechnological services; (d) laboratory and testing services; (e) medical research services; and (f) any other prescribed services or activities. Clauses 2, 9 and 10 amend the Act to provide for this concession which will take effect from 1st April 1988. The second budget concession extends industrial building allowances to approved companies in the following industries with effect from the Year of Assessment 1988: (a) agrotechnology; (b) horticulture; (c) aquaculture; and (d) other approved services with specialized structures. Clause 12 amends section 18 of the Act to provide for this. The third budget concession provides for 90% tax exemption on incomes of an inventor or author from an approved invention or approved product innovation. Clause 3 inserts a new subsection (10) to section 10 of the Act to give effect to this. The fourth budget concession extends the period of tax exemption granted to the Singapore International Monetary Exchange from 5 years to 10 years. Clause 5 amends section 13(1)(z) of the Act to provide for this. The fifth budget concession relates to the deduction of trade losses and carry forward of allowances by companies. The existing legislation allows companies to carry forward allowances and deduct trade losses incurred in one year against profits in subsequent years only if there are no substantial changes in shareholders. This may unintentionally penalize companies whose restructuring is beyond their control. To avoid this, the Comptroller of Income Tax will now be given the discretion to allow companies with substantial shareholding changes arising from reasons unconnected with tax considerations, to carry forward all allowances or deduct trade losses against profits from the same trade or business. To effect this, clause 13 inserts a new subsection (2A) to section 23 of the Act and clause 14 inserts a new subsection (8) to section 37 of the Act. The sixth budget concession limits the highest effective tax rate imposed under Part B of the Second Schedule of the Act to 33% with effect from Year of Assessment 1988. This ensures that those who are taxed under the existing Part B marginal rates, such as management corporations, will not be taxed above the effective corporate tax rate of 33%. Clause 16 inserts a new subsection (5) to section 42 of the Act for this purpose. The seventh budget concession allows approved investment holding companies and unit trusts to elect to have their profits from stocks and shares or other marketable securities taxed according to the length of time for which the securities had been held. Clauses 4, 8 and 11 amend the Act to provide for this. I now move to the other amendments. Presently, under section 13A of the Act, dividends paid out of exempt shipping income on shares of a preferential nature are exempt from tax in the hands of shareholders. This has resulted in shipping companies raising capital through preferential shares and redeemable preference share issues instead of through a loan, as to avoid tax. Clauses 6 and 7 amend the Act to prevent this as well as to be consistent with the provisions in the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act, whereby dividends paid on shares of a preferential nature are not given exemption in the hands of shareholders. The law as it stands requires taxpayers to render a statement of dividends paid to the Comptroller of Income Tax at the end of each year of assessment, failing which prosecution action could be undertaken. To give taxpayers a reasonable period of time to comply with this requirement, clause 17 amends section 44(8) of the Act to allow a time limit of three months from the end of each year of assessment for taxpayers to furnish the required statement. This would also be consistent with other sections of the Act pertaining to submission of annual returns and estimated chargeable income for which a time limit of three months is given. The next amendment provided by clause 19 amends section 94(2A) of the Act to apply the penalty under that section in respect of continuing offences, to offences for failure to comply with sections 44(7) and (8). Sections 44(7) and (8) require every company to render to the Comptroller a statement containing particulars on the balance in their section 44 account after the payment of each dividend and at the end of the year of assessment respectively. Effectively, section 94(2A) imposes an additional penalty for those who pay up the original penalty but continue with the offence of not submitting the required forms to the Comptroller. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the provisions in the Bill to implement the tax changes announced last year. I have two points to raise. The first relates to the taxing of profits made by unit trusts. Under the new amendment, unit trusts which previously were not subject to tax are now subject to tax. Sir, unit trust is actually a method or conduit, a means by which investors collectively come together to invest in a larger portfolio of shares or money instruments. They do so because they can take advantage of professional management. At the same time by having a larger portfolio they minimize or lower their risk. Therefore, it is no surprise that the inves- tors in unit trusts, or so-called unit holders,are actually small investors. On their own they do not have the means to go into the market to buy a large number of different shares to diversify the risk. So they buy units in the unit trusts. Sir, if this Bill, as it stands at the moment, goes through, it will penalize these small investors. Most investors in the stock market, in the securities industry, are not subject to tax at the moment. But if we tax unit trusts at source, we are, in fact, penalizing the small investors. Another factor is that in countries like Hong Kong, Japan, Europe, including the UK and even the US, unit trusts are not subject to tax. So therefore by doing otherwise, Singapore is actually impeding the progress of the fund management industry. Of course, this must result in a negative impact on our securities industry. So I hope the Minister will clarify or re-do this particular section of the Bill which classifies unit trusts under investment company. The other point I want to raise is on clause 13 which allows for tax losses to be carried forward to subsequent years. I welcome this change. This is particularly useful for public companies in which a major shareholding change is outside the control of many shareholders, particularly the minority shareholders. By allowing losses to be carried forward, this Bill will, in fact, benefit a large number of minority shareholders who can now have the advantage of the tax benefit. What I want the Minister to look into is to have a liberal interpretation of what is meant by the same business or same trade which allows losses to be carried forward. On the one hand, we want companies to upgrade, and to improve, to go into new technology and new services. However, by restricting to the same trade, we are encouraging companies to remain where they are just to take advantage of the carried forward tax losses. Presently the Bill allows only for losses to be carried forward if the company remains in the same trade or in the same business. A more liberal interpretation will help our companies to diversify and that should, of course, in the long run benefit Singapore, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek one clarification with the Minister. But before I ask for this clarification I have to declare my interest. I am a director of a shipping company, the national shipping line, and this company has issued preferential shares. Sir, section 13(A) is to be amended whereby dividends paid will not be exempt from income tax. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether this will be applied retroactively or is it only for new issues?

Sir, I would like to express my support for this Bill. However, I would like to make a comment on clause 13 which relates to section 23 of the principal Act. The Minister earlier said that if there is any reorganization or restructure of a company which is not directly for the purpose of deriving tax benefit, then the tax advantage will be passed on to the new set-up. I would like the Minister to consider putting in an additional word such as, if you were to read from subsection (2A): '(2A) The Minister may, where there is a substantial change in the shareholders of a company and he is satisfied that such change is not ...'. I wonder whether the Minister will consider inserting the word "directly". So that it reads: ' ... such change is not directly for the purpose of deriving any tax benefit ...'. so that the restructuring or reorganization of a company will really benefit from such an amendment. Because any reorganization or restructuring of a company will invariably involve taxation, and somehow for a company that has made a loss whenever there is a restructuring or reorganization of capital or of shareholders of that particular company, it will have an indirect or direct tax effect. I would like the Minister to consider this particular point.

Mr Speaker, Sir, generally speaking, everybody would like to see a reduction of taxes. But sometimes while the Government reduces its taxes for big companies, it also imposes taxes on the people in different ways. For example, now reductions of taxes have been made from 40% to 33%. But diesel taxes are up, levies on foreign workers are up, all these things have gone up. So it amounts to ---

Dr Lee, can I know the relevance of what you are saying to this Bill?

My relevance, Sir, is that income tax goes towards building up a more and more regressive tax structure in Singapore.

What you are saying has no relevance to what this Bill is all about. Can you be more precise in what you wish to say and relate yourself to this Bill?

Well, Sir, many of these tax incentives and allowances are, in fact, subsidies given to many of these big companies. If they should be given to the local companies, one can quite understand that. But if they are all given to the big companies, they are unnecessary because these big companies anyway are making big profits and if they want to make further profits they have to make further investments and, of course, ultimately these subsidies will only help them to increase their profits. Generally speaking, we do not mind people coming here to invest and make profits but, as I said, Sir, while on the one hand the Government gives all these subsidies, on the other hand they impose more taxes on the people. Therefore, under those circumstances, I think, generally that is not correct. I would like to know, Sir, for example, with this reduction of taxes from 40% to 33%, how much tax has been foregone for the year of assessment 1987 and 1988? We would like to know the figures, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will take the questions as they were addressed. The first question was from the Member for Tiong Bahru GRC. He wants to know why unit trusts which were previously not taxed are now being included under the amendment to the Bill in which they are liable for tax. First, I would like to clarify that up to now unit trusts have always been liable for tax except that no tax has actually been levied because their mode of operation has been such that the income tax authorities consider them not to be trading. Therefore, they were not subject to normal trading tax. Instead the authorities treat the profits made from selling and buying of securities, stocks and shares as capital gains. Under the existing arrangements investors are taxed for the dividend and interest received in their financial securities. But they have always been liable for trading tax on transactions. But because their mode of operation has not attracted tax so far, therefore they have not been taxed. So the amendment does not really introduce anything substantially new. What has happened is that unit trusts have been under some uncertainty as to their tax liability because there is no specific exemption of their activities in buying or selling shares from tax. So the purpose of this amendment is to allow them to elect to be taxed under a schedule of holding periods for which if they conform, like fund management companies, they would be able to have certainty on the tax liabilities. They can, of course, continue to opt to maintain their present method of operation in the hope that it would not attract tax. So it really is up to the unit trust to decide which they will prefer, to opt for certainty or to continue operating with some uncertainty as to their tax liability. The Member has also said that unit trusts ought not to be taxed because they act as conduits for the investments of small investors. Theoretically, when small investors buy or trade shares on the stock market, they are not liable to tax because the gains they make would be considered capital gains. However, even if an individual investor transacts in large volumes and frequently, he could be liable to tax as a trader. So it is not true to say that the small investor is not liable to tax at all. But by and large they have not been taxed because their level of activity has not been of a scale which suggests that they should be taxed. As to the notion that unit trusts are conduits for the small individual investor and therefore ought not to be taxed, up to now it has been the case that for many unit trusts the investors are small individual investors. However, this does not, in fact, stop many large institutions from buying unit trust securities. There is always the risk that if tax exemption is given to unit trusts preferentially, it might be used by institutional investors as a conduit to secure tax-free privileges. This would be quite unacceptable because it means that the unit trust financial activity would be given preferential treatment as opposed to, for example, investment in banks' CDs for which the interest attracts tax. So I do not think it will be equitable to treat unit trusts preferentially. The Member has also said that other countries do not tax unit trusts. That is not quite true. Unit trusts in the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States are taxed at the unit holder level. Therefore, they are subject to tax if they receive dividends and gains issued by the unit trusts. But it is true that they are not taxed at the trustee level. It is not true to say that they are not taxed at all. The second question by the Member is in regard to clause 13. He asked for consideration of widening the definition of those who qualify for carrying forward of losses. I think we can look into this to see whether there is merit. Turning now to the question from the Member for Cheng San GRC about the effect of the amendment on Neptune Orient Lines and whether the amendment would have retroactive effect. The answer is that it will have no retroactive effect. If NOL feels that there are shares which have already been issued and on which there is uncertainty, I would ask them to make their case to the Ministry of Finance and all requests or appeals would be considered sympathetically. The Member for Marine Parade GRC, again on clause 13, has asked that all companies be allowed even for reorganizations, even those that involve tax matters to be allowed this tax privilege. Is that correct?

Point of clarification, Sir. I was trying to say that if you were to read subsection (2A), it says: 'The Minister may, where there is a substantial change in the shareholders of a company and he is satisfied that such change is not for the purpose ...'. I suggest that instead of "is not for" maybe we should consider "is not directly for the purpose of deriving tax" because any reorganization will somehow have tax implications in any case.

I do not think we could agree to such a blanket sanction. Each case of course will be examined on its merits but to allow this would open the door to likely abuse. But companies which are on the borderline I think could be considered administratively for special treatment. I think that will be a safer route. Finally, this question from the NCMP. Mr Speaker has already ruled that some of his questions were irrelevant. Nevertheless, I would like to say that in regard to the reduction in income tax which was introduced in the previous budget, the reduction was not from 44% to 33%. It was from 40% to 33%. It was introduced at a time when the country was going through a recession and it was a measure to assist companies to improve their after-tax profitability in order to help the economy come out of the recession. Tax changes of this sort where corporate income tax and personal tax are reduced are essentially allowed as a means of stimulating productive enterprises. Income tax levied on companies is a tax on production. In fact, if reduces productivity and we believe in this and we will try to ensure that companies which are engaged in productive enterprises will have strong incentives to operate in Singapore and this tax concession applies equally to foreign and local companies. As to the special tax incentives granted to foreign companies, these are granted to attract companies to come here to start industries for which there is no local capability. In other words, they are to attract the high-tech industries which would not otherwise come here. Companies with this expertise, with their markets, have many alternative places to go to. They could go to Thailand, they could go to Malaysia, Indonesia. Even many countries in Europe and countries around the world are actively trying to encourage them to invest in their countries. So the incentives we have introduced have brought us considerable economic growth. They bring capital, they bring jobs and they bring markets which would not otherwise be accessible to us. On the question of whether levies are regressive - I believe the levies he is talking about refer to the maids levy, to the levy on foreign workers - I should point out that these were not introduced for revenue purposes but were introduced for the purpose of controlling potential social problems and therefore have no relevance in terms of revenue generation. Of course, it generates revenue in the process because the Government has found that financial control is simpler and more effective. The alternative would be to impose a method of rationing which I think Members will understand raises equally difficult problems.

May I seek a point of clarification from the Minister regarding the answer he gave on unit trust. Could the Minister please state clearly whether those unit trusts that are up to now paying tax in the same manner, like he said interests and dividends, but not paying tax on the gains arising from the sales and purchases of securities, will continue to be taxed in the same manner as before even after the passing of this Bill, if they opt to choose their old method?

The answer is yes, provided they continue to operate as they do now. Unit trusts are not taxed because their managers, in order to avoid the risk of tax, have been very conservative in their trading transactions, so the majority of the shares or securities they have bought have been held for sufficiently long periods to qualify for capital gains. So if they continue to operate the way as they do now it ought not to attract tax under the new Act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to make a comment on the Minister's reply to my point about unit trusts. I welcome the principle that it should not be used by large institutional investors to take advantage of our unit trusts outside the ambit of investment companies. But the point nevertheless is that unit trusts perhaps should be best taxed at the unit holder's level, which some countries have done, because then some of the individuals may not be subject to tax and some will pay their own personal national tax rate but not a fixed rate or a blanket rate if the unit trust is taxed at the level of the trust.

Theoretically, that is possible and, in fact, some countries operate that. But in discussions with these countries, most of these countries in fact regret having done that. The reason for this is that the collection of taxes in the hands of the unit holder is extremely complex. As you realize, there are thousands of people involved and the investors buy and trade these units. Therefore, the collection process is very complex and often impossible to enforce. As you know, the unit trusts, the units bought by investors, can be held by trustees, for example. So tracking down ownership would involve administrative enforcement of a type which the Income Tax people feel is almost impossible. Therefore, the declaration of profits from such transactions to the unit holder and experience has been that often many of these transactions would not be declared. Therefore, enforcement and collection become impossible. It is far simpler administratively to collect at the trustee level.

Sir, I am sorry to take up more time but I think I need another clarification on the Minister's answer to my earlier clarification and, that is, would he consider informing the Commissioner for Inland Revenue that in looking at the tax angle or the tax payable by unit trusts, that the length of time of the securities held by the unit trust managers is very often not dependent on the mangers themselves since unit trusts have a system of redemption on a daily basis so that if more unit trust holders redeem at the same time, then they may have no choice but to liquidate their investment to meet the demand for redemption. Sir, in this respect, I would also like to add that I am an interested party in the answer.

Sir, this problem is recognized and I believe discussions with the Income Tax authorities and the Ministry of Finance are on this very issue. The problem faced by unit trusts is that they are open-ended trusts in which holders can liquidate as and when they choose whereas the tax liability of the trustee could be deferred sometime further down the road. So the trustees face the dilemma that they may be forced to redeem share units which could be substantial, against future tax liability of which they are not certain. This problem is recognized and I think the proposal has been made to the unit trust managers that when such a situation arises there should be some system whereby large redemptions should be granted, on a case by case basis, specific tax exemption. I believe that the matter is not resolved but that is the approach being used. The problem is recognized but we cannot give blanket exemptions. But where redemptions are substantial, specific exemptions could be considered.

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. - [Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill seeks to amend the Probation of Offenders Act to reduce the minimum period of probation from one year to six months and to increase the fine for failure to comply with a probation order from $100 to $500. For certain offenders, particularly those with no previous delinquent traits and who commit minor offences, a minimum one-year period probation is too long. Experience shows that offenders, particularly young offenders, who come from relatively stable homes and who have had good school or employment records, only need a shake-up. Such offenders would benefit more from short concentrated rehabilitation work within the first six months of their probation order. The fine for failure to comply with conditions of a probation order was set at $100 in 1951. It is too low a sum to be a deterrent in present day circumstances. The Bill also seeks to delete section 5(5) of the Act which requires the Government to appoint as Probation Officer the person responsible for the supervision of the probationer. For many years, this section has been a dead letter because of frequent changeover of staff due to resignation or transfer. The courts and the Probation Service have grown over the years and the Magistrates and Judges cannot be expected to know the Probation Officers intimately. It will suffice for the offenders to be placed under probation supervision. There is no need for the courts to name the officer who should be responsible for the supervision. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. I see that the amendments are minor in nature but they are good steps undertaken to assist in the rehabilitation of offenders. The provisions provide the flexibility for the monitoring of the offenders. At the same time, it reduces the workload of the department and it provides opportunities for offenders to be motivated to bring about change. While all these are good in terms of rehabilitation, the success of the scheme will depend on whether there are effective criteria and monitoring system which could be established. I am wondering whether the Ministry has, in the course of its work been able to assess the effectivenss of shorter periods of supervision, and what does it propose in future in terms of evaluating the impact of such a scheme with regard to rehabilitation of offenders. I think these issues are crucial in the sense that unless we develop an effective mechanism to monitor the success of the scheme, we will not be able to assess its impact. So I would be obliged if the Minister of State will respond to these few queries.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I read the Member for Tiong Bahru GRC correctly, he is not objecting to the reduction of the terms but he is worried that rehabilitation process should be closely monitored. I did not quite get what he meant by that aspect of it.

I would, firstly, like to seek clarifications as to whether the Ministry has in fact undertaken some studies earlier to see that shorter periods of supervision have produced results, as such it has proposed this amendment. Secondly, I would like to know whether the implementation of this scheme will be closely monitored, to see whether such a scheme is useful to help the offender.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill just provides the court with an attractive method dealing with an offender who might otherwise have to be committed to a penal of corrective institution. Not all offenders are eligible for probation, whether it is for a minimum of six months or a maximum period of 36 months. So there is still provision for the bad offenders to be under probation for 36 months. Because this Bill has not been implemented, we of course cannot give him a report on whether there has been any success in that area of rehabilitation within six months. However, the Ministry has made studies and followed up cases of rehabilitation after the period of 12 to 36 months. Two studies were undertaken by the Ministry to measure these long-term after-conduct effects. They showed that in the case of adult probationers, nearly 55% steered clear of the law five to seven years after they are discharged. And for juvenile probationers, 58% steered clear of the law. This is an indication that there is a good degree of success after probation. But I would take note of his request, and after this is instituted, we will follow up cases who have been on six months' probation and see if the degree of success matches this or betters the percentages we have obtained with those under the old Bill.

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. - [Dr Seet Ai Mee.] Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." Sir, this Bill seeks to repeal and re-enact, with amendments, the Destitute Persons Act to provide for new provisions to enable the Director Social Welfare to prefer charges against habitual offenders, to increase the penalty for abscondence from custody, to impose a penalty for disorderly behaviour in a welfare home, to enable the Minister to appoint a Review Committee to review the period of stay in a welfare home, and to enable the Director Social Welfare to take fingerprint impressions for identification purposes. The Destitute Persons Act was introduced in 1965 to replace the Vagrancy Ordinance. The Vagrancy Ordinance had treated any beggar or vagrant as a criminal. It failed to distinguish between the destitute individual and the petty criminal. The destitute was given a prison sentence upon conviction as though he was a criminal. The Destitute Persons Act removed begging in public from the list of minor offences and treated begging as a social problem instead. Beggars and vagrants found in public places were provided with care and shelter in Government welfare homes. It has been 23 years since the Destitute Persons Act was introduced. Much water has gone under the bridge. For one, the economic problems of the 1960s against which the Destitute Persons Act was introduced are no longer with us. In the early 1960s, there were widespread poverty, squatter housing, high unemployment, resulting in many vagrants and beggars. Child beggars were also a common sight. Today, no one needs to beg for a living. The economic progress which we have achieved has provided job opportunities for all. A person with absolutely no resources to rely on and who is unable to fend for himself will be given assistance and, where necessary, accommodation in government welfare homes. But despite the good economic growth and the much improved housing and social conditions, there are still some beggars and vagrants. There are, in our population, able-bodied layabouts who do not care to work for a living. They live off the sympathy and generosity of others. For them, begging is an easy and lucrative way to make a living. Some of them are by no means poor. In 1987, my staff picked up a male beggar who had bank accounts totalling $132,000. Another beggar had $29,000 in his bank. Last year, a beggar who was picked up had about $13,000 in his possession. These beggars are, of course, the exceptions. But there is no reason for them to beg. A stay in a welfare home does nothing to transform such able-bodied or financially self-sufficient and habitual beggars into economically useful citizens. Not only do they occupy scarce bed space, they have also come to regard their stay in the welfare homes as a comfortable sojourn in their life. Government welfare homes are not meant for them. Government welfare homes are meant for those who are unable to care for themselves or who after a short-term rehabilitation can be settled back into a self-supporting lifestyle. They are ineffective and inappropriate for the able-bodied but chronically indequate person who prefers begging to working and who is resistant to change in lifestyle. It is therefore necessary to differentiate the able-bodied person, who finds begging an easy option to working for his living, from the truly destitute who is in need of compassion, care and concern. The latter will be given shelter in our welfare homes. But we should not tolerate habitual beggars or encourage them in any way by continuing to be lenient. Such persons are more in need of discipline than care. A fine or a prison term is more effective in discouraging such beggars. This new Act will empower the Director of Social Welfare to prefer charges against habitual beggars. A habitual beggar who is found begging will, under this Act, be guilty of an offence and, when convicted, may be fined a sum not exceeding $3,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. A habitual beggar is one who at least on two previous occasions was found begging and sent to a welfare home. Government welfare homes are also not a penal institution. Life there, although not luxurious, is decent. Residents are well treated. They have three meals a day, clean beds and recreational facilities. There are work programmes for those who can work and such persons receive an allowance. Hence, there is no reason for a person in a welfare home to abscond. Yet over the past three years, an average of 159 residents absconded annually. It is a sheer waste of time and manpower and public funds to round up a person time and again to have him abscond again. During the last three years, of the 660 persons picked up, 220 were abscondees and 168 were ex-residents of welfare homes. The ex-residents were discharged to their care-person but they refused to settle down and reverted to begging as it was easy. The penalty for abscondence will therefore be increased from a term not exceeding three months imprisonment to a term not exceeding six months imprisonment, so as to discourage abscondence. There is also a new provision to provide for a fine not exceeding $3,000 or imprisonment term not exceeding two years for disorderly behaviour in the welfare home. The Act will also empower the Minister to appoint a Review Committee comprising community leaders and responsible citizens to review the care of every resident in our welfare home and to recommend his discharge from the home. No one needs to stay in our welfare home longer than is necessary. Another significant new feature in this Act is the finger printing and photographing of destitute persons admitted into a welfare home. This is necessary for identification purposes as some residents are psychiatrically disordered or intellectually disabled and some have been known to throw away their identity cards to avoid identification. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 1.45 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that, in spite of the explanation given by the Minister a little while ago, many provisions here do not seem to treat a person as a human being. Very severe penalties are imposed and a person who is called a destitute is treated almost like a criminal. No real efforts can be seen for rehabilitation and the whole thing is intended more as a cover-up than an attempt to help the destitute. The Minister himself has just mentioned the fact that 159 people have absconded yearly. Why should people abscond if the welfare homes are so very good? Has he ever tasted the food given in one of those welfare homes? "Three meals are given a day", he said. Has he ever been there, I wonder? I have been. I do not know whether he has. You know, they have to get food from everywhere. If anyone takes food to them, however small a quantity, they are so happy which only shows that they never really have enough. Sir, the extension of detention of 30 days gives the officer too much power. And there is always the tendency to misuse and abuse this power, the power similar to section 55 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, to keep a person under detention for one whole month. Surely the person should be given some of his basic human rights. If they find it so difficult to check on these people, why can the department not increase the staff? That should be the more rational way of doing things, rather than merely keeping them under lock and key for a certain length of time. I would like to refer to the penalties which are meted out to destitutes, however you may want to define them. Because, after all, this definition is all very subjective and it all depends on the officer who is doing the job. As I said, mistakes can always to made. I went to a welfare home only a couple of weeks back and there was one person who complained to me about how he was picked up although he was not a vagrant and was only going about his usual routine. He was very well dressed. He managed to earn his own living. But he was, I suppose, treated as a vagrant. I asked the officer who was with us what he thought of the explanation given to me, and he said that probably the Government thought he was a vagrant and therefore took him along to the welfare home. Therefore, Sir, mistakes can be made. And if people want to run away from these welfare homes, it must tell the Government that there is something very wrong there. If the home is good and people do enjoy living under such circumstances, why should they want to run away? There is no point. Therefore, the Government must find out why people beg. The Minister says they do not care to work for a living. How does the Government know that? Have they been given the proper jobs which they could do? It is no use asking an engineer to sweep the drain. Or a doctor to do something which he is not trained for.

Doctor vagrant!

Therefore, Sir, we must give jobs with adequate pay to the person and also make sure that the person can do the job in his usual way. The Minister says that no one needs to beg for a living. If that should really be true, there would not be beggars around. There could not be so many professional beggars having so much money, as he says. This idea of arresting everybody along the streets and keeping them away reminds me, Sir, of the old days when the Prime Minister used to order that all attap huts by the road-side be fenced off with some painted-up fencing so as not to allow visitors coming in to Singapore see the dilapidated houses and thus think that everything was nice and OK. You remember, Sir, the Old Airport Road. All the houses there were very old and people were living there. The Government ordered fencings to be put to cover up the slums in order to show that Singapore was not so bad after all. Similarly, in this case, there is this little bit of a cover-up. And what reason is there for imposing a sentence of $3,000 and two years? Surely they are not criminals. We might as well ask them to hang themselves. Has a beggar $3,000 to pay? And if he has not, what does he do? Go to prison and get worse food there? I wonder whether the Minister has ever been inside a prison. I have. Thanks to Lee Kuan Yew. Therefore, Sir, I believe these clauses are all too draconian. They are too severe. Taking fingerprint impressions and photographs of them means treating them all as criminals. That should not be done. I would suggest that more attention be paid to investigations as to why these people have to beg in the streets and the Government should do everything it can to rehabilitate the beggars.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill because the Bill provides a fairly comprehensive approach to deal with the modern problems of beggary. The NCMP, Dr Lee, has said that there is still serious destitution in Singapore and destitutes are being criminalized. But I wonder whether he has, done any analysis and reviewed some of the problems relating to these people. I note that many of these people who are involved in beggary and other related activities are, in fact, people who have serious mental and other problems. They have been discharged from Woodbridge Hospital and subsequently sent to their homes. They somehow leave their homes and then get into a state of vagrancy. These are the people that we are dealing with. People who are partially mentally deranged and do not know where to operate. Some of these cases require rehabilitation. They require support. I see the Bill makes provisions to assist them. I feel that this problem needs to be addressed because Singapore is an open place. I note that recently beggary has increased in Singapore. So unless we look at a more constructive approach to deal with the problem, this problem will always remain. It may be impossible to totally eradicate this problem because if there are opportunities available to make money from beggary, there is likely to be people to be involved in this. Sir, what is important is to think of an effective rehabilitation scheme because many of them are very young adults who are less than 40 years old. And if that is the age range, I feel that more effective rehabilitation measures should be made available to the homes to help them to gain some form of skills and to be placed in gainful employment. We should try to place them on relevant gainful employment and motivate them to work. Though I agree that it is a difficult task, but it is not impossible to place more effort in rehabilitating them. Sir, if efforts are placed on this, I know that they will subsequently be discharged and be able to get back to the community to be engaged in some form of gainful living. I would like to bring up several matters for the Minister to clarify. First, clause 2(1),paragraphs (a) and (b) seem to suggest a very vague definition of an idle person and who can be identified as having no visible means of subsistence. Some of us who may be idling around Orchard Road and others who appear to have no visible means may be hauled in under this Act. I trust there will be careful exercise and discretion in terms of identifying those who are found to be destitutes. I suggest that clause 2(1) (a) and (b) should be read together so that it will provide a clearer definition and identification of destitute persons. Sir, in order that there is a recourse for some people who are taken into custody, their cases need to be reviewed. This is because there may be some people who, feel lost and not being able to say for sure at that point in time where they are. They may not necessarily be destitutes. Second, I recommend that the review board should have powers within the 30 days to initiate for investigations and to review such cases so that people who may not necessarily be destitutes are not con- fined in the Homes. So if this properly exercised, then I think we will then be able to identify those who are really destitutes and those who need to be rehabilitated. The third area is the fine imposed on family members or the care-givers. I think this is a bit too severe. People who have attempted to give support, in the first place, to destitute people should be persuaded further to look after them but not be fined. This may create further rift and problems between the destitutes and their care givers. To impose this burden on the care givers is, in fact, a bit too stiff. The other matter that I want to bring up is the penalty on family members if they do not inform the Director within 24 hours of ceasing their care for a destitute. This period is rather short because it takes a much longer time than a day to decide what needs to be done for the destitute. So I hope that these aspects will be carefully reviewed and that the Minister will provide further clarification on the matters raised. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to ask a clarification from the Minister in regard to clause 2(2), definition of begging. 'For the purposes of this Act, a person shall be deemed to be begging if his conduct is calculated to induce the giving of alms, whether or not there is any pretence of singing, playing, performing, offering anything for sale or otherwise.' Sir, I have visited England, Europe, Australia. I notice that in public places young people do come out into the open singing, playing and performing, and I think it gives colour and life to those countries, especially to visitors there. I am just wondering that if there are people who would genuinely like to come forward to give some kind of performance in public places and not pretend, and if money should be thrown to them, whether or not they will be hauled up for begging?

I thank Members for their comments, suggestions and contributions. Sir, the Government does not want to just pick up anybody from the streets and put them away in the welfare home, and therefore commit manpower and spend a lot of time and public money looking after them, taking care of their health and so on. That is not for the Government to do. The Government wants to take care of those people who are homeless, destitutes, in the streets and give them board and shelter and, if they are able-bodied, help them to re-integrate back into society so that they can become useful citizens. But there are people who just are not amenable to rehabilitation or welfare treatment. They prefer to go back to the streets to beg. For such able-bodied persons there is no need for them to beg. There are jobs available. There are jobs that go a-begging. We have 150,000 or more foreign workers. Why is there a need for able-bodied persons to beg? This Bill is directed at such people. It is not directed at people who are unable to work, who are homeless, destitutes or vagrants. For these categories of people, we will look after them in the welfare home. The welfare home is not that bad a place. I have been there. I know Dr Lee went there the other day and my officers told me about that. He went there unannounced, uninvited.

Is the Minister saying that we have to be invited in order to visit a welfare home?

Sir, the welfare institution is a Government institution. I think it is not right for anybody just to walk in there and say, "I want to do this." Of course, if the Member wishes to see the place and visit a person, by all means, do that, but at least he should have the courtesy to tell the Superintendent beforehand that that is being done. I am not objecting to his visit because I think it is an eye-opener to him that the welfare home, after all, is not that bad. If it were, I am sure he will not find residents there; they would all have gone away. There is no security in the home. It is not a prison. That is why people can walk in and out of the place. Despite the comfort or the decent life in the home, there are still people who prefer to be outside than to be confined in the institution. The person who asked Dr Lee to go to the home to visit him is one such person. He prefers to be out rather than to stay in the home. He is a vagrant. There were complaints received about him, and therefore he was picked up and housed in the home. If he has visible means of support and there is somebody else looking after him, by all means, let the person look after him. In fact, he asked Dr Lee to be his care person, from what I understand. If Dr Lee is willing to do that, we will release the person to him. But Dr Vasoo has said, "Why do we want to penalize the care person?" It is because there are residents in such homes who actually want to get out and therefore persuade someone to take them away. And if the care person takes no responsibility for this destitute, and he goes back into the streets to beg again. So we must place some responsibility on that care person, who wants to be a care-giver, to really want to look after the destitute rather than to give an excuse for the destitute to get out of the home. Therefore, the penalties in this Bill are meant for the hardcore cases. In the old Act the maximum of three months' imprisonment is actually very lenient, and in imposing this old penalty the court actually is tied down to the maximum that is allowed in the law. So more often than not we see the person who has been imprisoned for only a month really, goes back again to the streets begging when he is released. So we have to extend this maximum to six months instead of the existing three months. It is a load of rubbish, I would say, of Dr Lee's earlier remark that these people do not have enough to eat. There is more than enough to eat. In the past the food was cooked in the home but because of some health control problems we decided to let outside caterers provide three meals a day, and this is not insignificant compared to what many people outside the home get. On clause 2(2) of this Bill, let me assure the Member that if he were confronted or approached by a welfare officer, and if he is able to account for his demeanour, I am sure he will not be treated as a vagrant. This provision is only for people who cannot explain or cannot account for their behaviour, eg, they cannot say where they come from, and so on, and therefore the welfare officer thinks that for their own welfare they should be placed in a home for investigation. The one-month period seemed adequate at first but we know that at times when we carry out a major operation there are many beggars and vagrants being placed in the home, and we need more time. There is no point for the welfare officers to keep these vagrants or these destitutes longer than is necessary. The sooner we finish the job,the sooner we let him out if there is a place for him to go to. For those who can be rehabilitated, let me assure Dr Vasoo that we will try to do that and send the person back to society. As for Mr Chiam's comments, let me assure him that if a person is destitute and he has no place to go, and if he were to perform in a public place and becomes a busker - I think that is what the Member is referring to - then I think he will be picked up by the Environment Ministry, if not by the MCD, for causing a nuisance in a public street and noise pollution. There are times when a person is allowed to perform in public places, eg, during our cultural festivals. Then I think in those circumstances these musicians or show-biz persons would not be mistaken for vagrants or beggars.

Explanation.

All right.

First, about my trying to impose myself on the welfare home. It was not true, Sir. I went there, true, without informing them well beforehand but that was because I wanted to know what was actually happening inside the Home. And if the officer-in-charge had said no, we would have walked away. That was all there was to it. He agreed to show us around. To say that these people have enough to eat, well, it is almost like a case of Oliver Twist, Sir, always asking for more. If they really had enough food to eat, why should they ask for more? Simple common sense should tell the Minister that. I must also remind the Minister as well as Dr Vasoo, that all these people who have been considered destitute are usually old, who cannot do any work, and who are in many ways disabled. Therefore special considerations must be given to them. The fact that the Minister seems to have known so very quickly that I had gone to visit the welfare home shows what tight control the PAP has over all the organizations in Singapore. So can you imagine what happens if you have Big Brother there? He has his eyes all over you. You do not know what he is going to say or what he is going to do. I think the Government should relax a bit and not impose its views too much, on the officers who are looking after the place. Then maybe we can have a better Singapore.

Sir, the only instance as was told to me why the residents asked for more was when Dr Lee visited the home with some of his friends. He brought some tangerine, and some cakes, but there was not enough to share around. So they asked for more. Had he brought enough, I think they would not ask for it. So the Home Superintendent, I was told, decided that in order to be fair they gave those cakes and tangerine only to the ladies rather than to the men because there were fewer women than men.

I think he wants to clarify about the amount of food.

If I had the salary of the Minister, I would not mind giving them more.

So when Dr Lee visited the home, it was between 9.30 and 10.

30. That was not meal time and so he could not have known for a fact that they did not have enough to eat. He could not have known. It is not the tight control that we exercise that I come to know of Dr Lee's visit. Because if I did not know of the visit, he will stand here and say, "How's that the Minister does not know. That was a failing in the system." Sir, everything that happens in a Government department, as Ministers, we have a responsibility to know as much as possible. We do not know and we cannot pretend to know every detail of it. But the fact that Dr Lee bothered to show his concern for the welfare of the residents in the home, it was reported to me. There is nothing wrong with that.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the various Acts referred to in the first column of the Schedule to the Bill empower statutory bodies named therein to compound offences. The Minister for Finance has decided to allow them to retain all sums collected from the composition of offences under those Acts as operating source of revenue and this Bill seeks to give effect to that decision. Sir, I beg to move.

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. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Immigration Act was last amended in 1984 when this House enhanced the penalties for various offences such as the offences of overstaying, illegal entry and the employing of immigration offenders. The present penalty for overstaying in excess of three months, illegal entry and employing immigration offenders is a mandatory imprisonment term of between six months and two years and a fine of up to $6,000. These stiffer penalties and economic slowdown between 1985 and 1986 have helped to contain the overstayer problem. In 1984, a record high of 5,665 overstayers were arrested. After the 1984 amendment, the number arrested fell to 4,559 in 1985 and 2,916 in 1986. However, with economic recovery, the problem has resurfaced. In 1987, 3,532 overstayers were arrested and in 1988, the number arrested was 4,120, an increase of 16.6%. Besides this sharp increase, a large number of arrested overstayers have been found to have overstayed more than three months. In 1986, 1,318 of the 2,916 overstayers arrested (or 45.2%) were found with passes that had lapsed more than three months. In 1987, 1,840 of the 3,532 arrested overstayers (or 52.1%) belonged to this category. In 1988, 1,850 of those arrested (or 44.9%) were such offenders. In other words, nearly one in two overstayers have overstayed more than three months. Long term overstayers not only blatantly break our immigration and employment laws but they also pose a threat to our society. By circumventing work permit rules to work here illegally, overstayers are not subject to stringent checks carried out by the Work Permit Department to weed out known criminals. They are also not subjected to medical clearance imposed by the Work Permit Department. These overstayers threaten our law and order and may carry infectious diseases. Left undetected for too long, they may attempt to sink roots here, with even more serious long-term consequences to the society. We cannot afford to take a casual attitude towards this problem. If we do not take effective measures now, others will find it more attractive to enter or to stay illegally to work here or to seek their fortunes here. We are not against people coming to Singapore to work or even to seek their fortunes here. But they must do so lawfully. To keep the problem within check, we are forced to devote vast amounts of resources to track down, prosecute and repatriate overstayers and illegal immi- grants. As at 6th January, 1989, there were 1,014 overstayers and illegal immigrants in our prisons. This constitutes 17% of our total prison population. As a result, scarce funds and manpower resources have to be diverted from the rehabilitation of local prisoners and drug addicts to these foreigners. The problem of overstayers is not entirely caused by foreigners. There are Singaporean employers who contribute to this problem by willingly and knowingly employing immigration offenders. These employers are the root cause of the problem. Without employment, foreigners will not be tempted to overstay or enter illegally. It is the unscrupulous employers who create a demand which attracts the foreigners. As a result of this strong demand, trafficking syndicates have sprung up to supply illegal workers. With good prospects for further economic growth, we can foresee that the demand will not abate on its own accord. If more drastic measures are not taken now, we are going to be swamped by an increasing number of illegal immigrants and overstayers. Though the Immigration Act now provides for mandatory imprisonment of those who employ immigration offenders, the Immigration Department has found it extremely difficult to secure convictions against unscrupulous employers. This is not due to lack of trying on the part of the Immigration Department. These employers avoid formalizing an employer-employee relationship with immigration offenders. They resort to using immigration offenders' services on a short term basis and by not keeping employment records. The multiple sub-contracting system practised by our contractors at many worksites also makes it difficult for Immigration Department to identify the employers who actually hire the illegal workers. In addition, employers, when confronted, often deny knowledge of the immigration status of their workers. They simply claim ignorance of their workers' immigration offence. Currently, this knowledge factor is a vital ingredient that has to be proved by the prosecution. In many instances it is difficult to prove that an employer knowingly employed an overstayer or immigration offender. Other workers who are potential prosecution witnesses will not implicate or testify against the employers as they face the risk of losing their jobs. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is therefore necessary to amend the Immigration Act to strike at the root cause of the problem of overstayers and illegal immigrants. The Bill introduces a presumption clause against the occupier of any premises, other than residential premises, so that where any immigration offender is found at those premises and is in possession of tools or implements or engaged in any activity which would suggest that the immigration offender is working there, the occupier of those premises shall be presumed to have knowingly employed him. The Bill also makes it an offence for the owner, tenant and occupier of any premises to knowingly allow his premises to be used for the employment of immigration offenders. These provisions will prevent the irresponsible and unscrupulous employers from escaping prosecution. The onus will now be on the occupiers and the employers. They have to ensure that only legitimate workers are allowed entry to workplaces under their control. Employers who institute proper measures to check the immigration status of their employees need not fear the changes to the Immigration Act. Those who choose to flout our immigration laws will not get away easily. Finally, Sir, the Bill seeks to introduce mandatory caning of at least three strokes and at least three months' imprisonment for those who overstay 90 days or more or enter Singapore illegally. Our experience has shown that the present jail sentence of at least six months is not a sufficient deterrent. There is also no point in wasting our valuable resources, both financial and manpower, by jailing and feeding immigration offenders for long periods of time. With the introduction of caning, the mandatory imprisonment for these overstayers and illegal immigrants will be reduced to three months and, at the same time, the penalty will become a more effective deterrent. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is obvious that we have a very complex and serious problem on our hands. Why is this so? Firstly, the picture given is that of an organized crime. I will expand on this later. Secondly, we are dealing with foreign nationals. The people who come here and who are the illegal immigrant workers are nationals of other countries, will be subject now to our new law. Thirdly, bona fide Singaporean businessmen, who knowingly or unknowingly employ these illegal immigrants, become a party to this crime. Why do I say "unknowingly"? This is because of the problem of forged work permits. Some of these, I understand from the Ministry, are so well done that it would be difficult to differentiate the counterfeit from the real. Fourthly, the punishment to be meted out to the illegal overstayer may be regarded by some as too much, namely, that of mandatory caning. Sir, in my mind, there is no doubt that this is organized crime. The illegal immigrant has to be matched to an employer. He has to be provided with food and shelter during the period he is here. He is even given forged work permits. For the illegal immigrant who enters Singapore illegally, the picture is even more grave. There must be connections with overseas counterparts to supply the labour, to engage them, to transport them to Singapore and match these persons to Singapore employers. It is based on this scenario of an organized crime that we in our GPC support the stern measures to be taken. The Straits Times report of 25th January goes to illustrate this problem. There is the Thai agent. Then there are cars which have been specially modified so that the illegal immigrants can hide inside. All this shows that this is organized crime. In my mind, there is no question to it. But, Sir, who is the greatest villain of this all? My GPC members and others in this House, I am sure, will expand on this. How has the situation reached such alarming proportions? What is, as the Minister correctly mentioned, the root cause? Other members of my GPC will comment on this. Sir, we urge the Ministry of Home Affairs to distinguish between the profiles of the illegal immigrant. Firstly, there is the illegal overstayer. He comes here on a valid work permit but he overstays. Secondly, there is I believe the illegal overstayer who may be a repeat offender and, thirdly, the illegal immigrant who sneaks into Singapore without any travel documents and then receives maybe forged work permits. The punishment in each case should be commensurate with the crime, ie, the illegal immigrant who came into Singapore without valid travel papers, in my mind, should be treated most severely. The reason is obvious. Because the person who has successfully entered Singapore without any travel papers is part of a syndicate and he may also bring along with him drugs or even firearms and explosives. Sir, I would like to seek clarification from the Senior Minister of State regarding clause (2) of the Bill. Firstly, in a factory scenario, who will be responsible? The departmental head, the personnel manager, the factory manager, or the Chief Executive of the organization? In a construction site scenario, the problem becomes even more complicated with owner, main contractor, sub-contractors, and sub-sub-sub-contractors engaging workers. For example, if the Ministry of Health builds a hospital and an illegal immigrant is found on the site, ultimately who is responsible? Will it be my good friend, the Minister for Health? I raise this not in jest, but in all seriousness because it is a matter of concern to people who are in the construction and the development industry. Sir, the punishments to be meted out will be severe. I would like the Senior Minister of State to consider the following: First, whether he would allow a grace period, for example two weeks, for those illegal immigrants already here to surrender themselves to the authorities. I am sure that we will have no pleasure in caning them. Caning is a severe matter. I understand that it takes about a week for the wound to heal. A doctor has to be on standby when caning is in progress. The fact that this legislation will be effective is shown by the Straits Times report, again of January 25th, of three Thai overstayers who were trying to flee from Singapore. Let their respective foreign missions here be responsible for repatriating them. They can then spread the word back home regarding our new laws. I know that I stand to be accused of being soft-hearted or taking the soft line, or maybe even the populist line, for saying this. But I say this with conviction and on humanitarian grounds because these people are here now, and now we are enacting laws which will affect them. Second, will the Minister consider printing onto work permits, all work permit forms and work permits issued from now on, a cautionary note akin to that of drug offenders, to warn them of the consequences of overstaying? Third, ask our foreign missions in the countries where these people come from to publicize the new law. Fourth, meet the employers and other interest groups to help them and advise them. Let us bear in mind that they may be bona vide employers with genuine problems of getting labourers. Sir, for my GPC this has been an agonizing Bill. And I am sure for the Senior Minister of State himself, it also is one. Our initial reaction was that mandatory caning was too severe a punishment for someone who comes to Singapore to earn a living. We search hard to find an alternative. To increase fines - they have no money to pay; increase jail terms - it has no effect. It is a well-known fact that our jails are much better than theirs. In addition to that, working in our jails they also earn money. What then is the answer? We could find, honestly, no answer or alternative proposal. On the other hand, the picture of organized crime drives a chill down our spines. If they can do this with labour, what about other forms of illegal or organized crime? For example, prostitution, gambling, and maybe even new forms of secret society activities will appear. What effect will this have on the public safety of our nation? It cannot be but a negative effect. Sir, based on these facts - that the problem of illegal immigrants is closely akin or is actually organized crime and is on the increase - we support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will just elaborate on a few points brought up by my GPC Chairman. Sir, the presence of illegal immigrant workers is actually due to the strong demand created by employers, particularly the irresponsible employers who are willing to take on anyone so long as the workers are willing to work for long hours and low salaries. But the presence of this cheap labour in Singapore will make it difficult for our own unskilled Singaporeans to earn a decent living. These illegal immigrants also bring us social and security problems. Illegal workers before they are caught may knowingly or unknowingly break our rules and regulations. They may not be sensitive to our multi-racial and multi-religious society. The Senior Minister of State has reminded us of the health problems. But I thought it is worthwhile repeating them. The regular work permit holders are subject to medical examinations and only those whose health conditions are good are admitted. But illegal immigrants are not medically screened and therefore they may bring along diseases which could be dangerous and infectious, such as Aids or others. Sir, currently the country is spending near $10 million to imprison illegal immigrants, and this will increase if the problem is not solved. It is therefore in the interest of our people that illegal immigrants be curbed. I therefore support this Bill. But I feel our citizens should also support the Government policy and assist by informing the relevant authorities of illegal immigrants and those who offer them shelter. Sir, while I agree that we need stronger deterrence for those intending to enter the country illegally, I am concerned with the need to cane the offender, especially when the offender was the first time. I feel that if the offender needs to be caned, then he should be caned only for subsequent offences. While caning may serve as a very strong deterrent to those who intend to enter Singapore illegally, so long as there is demand for this, the smuggling syndi- cates will try to bring in the illegal immigrants. As my GPC Chairman has said, it is organized crime. So there is therefore a very urgent need to stop the demand itself. Currently, those caught and convicted of harbouring or using illegal immigrant workers get a jail sentence and a fine. But I would like to suggest, in addition, they should also be made to pay for the cost of keeping the illegal immigrants caught, pay for the cost of keeping them in prison, and also for the cost of sending them home. Sir, finally, what about the punishment for those involved in the human smuggling syndicates which brought in the illegal immigrants? I would like to find out from the Senior Minister of State how this group of people would be punished when they are caught and convicted.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I object very strongly to the penalty of caning, mandatory caning, that is, in the Bill. Dr Arthur Beng has already very clearly indicated that caning is a very severe punishment. It takes more than a week - I understand between one week and two weeks for a person who has been caned - to recover. And why should he be caned, for what? Just because he is a worker? After all, he works to earn money by the sweat of his brow. He does not go and rob, he does not go and steal. The illegl immigrants are doing jobs which are lowpaid with long hours, and jobs which not very many Singaporeans are doing. Therefore, they are doing a good service in many ways to Singapore. In the circumstances, we should not cane them. Caning, Sir, is a very severe punishment as I have said and Dr Ho has also said the same. There are also possible reasons why they happen to be illegal immigrants. They have already been touched on and therefore I will not go into that. For example, forged documents. Some have paid a lot of money for them. They have been tricked, and they are victims. In fact, they need our help. They should not be victims for the cane, for the punishment that we are to inflict on them. They should not be singled out for punishment. Caning was introduced into Singapore in the 1960s. All other Commonwealth countries had abolished caning. But our PAP Government introduced that. And why? Because they introduced caning in the Vandalism Act in order to punish political opponents. At that time, some of you may not know, many of our activists used to paint slogans on the roads, on the walls, on posters, and merely putting up a poster would be considered vandalism. The way the PAP used to deal with such slogan painting was mandatory caning. Sir, "mandatory" does not even give a judge any option or discretion to order other forms of punishment. I believe that for any violation of our laws, a longer term imprisonment is severe enough. We should do away with such barbaric punishment like caning.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this amendment. But I have a few points which I would like to bring up for the Minister's attention. Sir, first of all, we must ask ourselves a question as to why there are illegal immigrants. The impression that we have been given is that these illegal immigrants here are criminals. But if we go along with what the Senior Minister of State has said, that we must strike at the root problem, if we analyze the root problem, then we will come face to face with an issue that is actually larger than it seems. Many of these illegal immigrants are here because they are looking for a living. And many Singapore employers, especially those who are small, truly cannot find Singaporeans to work. Even yesterday in my Meet-the-People session I received standard letters from the Work Permit Department to say that, "I regret that the application has been rejected." This standard letter is very frequent. I checked with my fellow colleagues who said that they too also received such letters. This means that there is a real need for workers. If the Work Permit Department or the Ministry of Labour is willing to tackle this situation and allow the proper procedure to be effected by giving work permits, I think this illegal immigrant issue will not be an issue today. My point is, Mr Speaker, we are not tackling and solving the basic issue. I feel that work permits can be freely given. When we give work permits, we can actually monitor the workers better than the situation now. If work permits have probably been given, then I think the punishment levied on the employers will be very effective. Financial punishment will be very effective on the employers and to check such illegal immigrants. Sir, I say this with very serious intention. A lot of businessmen in Singapore are suffering because of policies that we have announced or implemented in isolation. It is a fact that a lot of foreign companies have set up shop here. It is also a fact that they have soaked up many hundreds and thousands of Singaporean workers and thereby a lot of local businessmen find it very difficult to get local Singaporeans to work. For example, it is very difficult to get Singaporeans to be mechanics, panel beaters or to work in garment factories and so on. It is a very serious issue. Because if this law comes into effect and I have no doubt that we can effectively eradicate these illegal immigrants, then the question that we must ask is: how are these businessmen going to survive? There is work, but no workers. This is an issue that I cannot answer. The First Deputy Prime Minister's revealed that all policies and decisions are made by the Cabinet and I believe then that the Cabinet owes us a duty to relook at this issue of work permits. Sir, I turn to the section on punishment. Personally, I think the punishment for illegal immigrants is too harsh. We must always remember that when we deal with such people, sometimes we make the mistake of thinking that these people have the same mentality as we have. Do not forget that many of these illegal immigrants are simple folks, living in the countryside, who may have not seen the city-lights but were told that if you go to the city, you can earn money and you do not have to till the ground and labour until the sun goes down and you still cannot get a penny's worth of labour. So they come here with simple-minded intentions. And when they come here, they find themselves being arrested. The sad thing is that some of them do not even know why they were arrested. They say, "Look, I paid somebody. Somebody tells me that you go to this place, everything will be arranged for you. You just go there and work and you just send your money back to feed your family." I think we have got to take that into consideration when we talk about caning these people. They are not criminals. They are honest workers. I am also told that caning is not allowed on women. You cannot cane those below 17 years old and those who are above 50 years old. Even if you have mandatory caning, I am just wondering whether it will be really effective to check those illegal immigrants that we do not want. Mr Speaker, Sir, as it is impossible to spell out the diverse circumstances in which these simple folks are in, I would suggest that caning should be made discretionary by the judges, and not mandatory. I want to refer to the proposed amendment to section 57 which says: '(8) Where a person who has acted in contravention of section 6, 15 or 36 or the regulations is found at any premises or place, other than premises used solely for residential purposes, and is in possession of any tools or implements or engaged in any activity which may give rise to the inference that he is doing any work ....' This is very vague. I think we are putting too much power on the people who will be policing this so that if you see somebody with any tools or implements, which can be anything, these are the only evidence he needs to make an arrest. Secondly, I think that we got to relook at this because it can abused by one disgruntled employer against another. So this is something which I hope the Minister will relook at this. 2.52 pm

Sir, I wish to join the Member for Paya Lebar in urging the Minister to consider making it possible for judges to consider the caning of illegal immigrants, not on a mandatory basis but on a discretionary basis. I find it very difficult to accept this mandatory provision. While I realize that the problem of illegal workers is getting out of hand and that something must be done to provide more teeth to our immigration officials to enforce the law more effectively, I wish to reiterate two points. First, as the Senior Minister of State himself has said, the root of the problem lies with the employers who employ these illegal workers. And because there is a demand, there is also this supply leading to the formation and organization of syndicates. So the crux of the problem lies with the organized nature of this trade and therefore the severity of the law, I think, should be directed at the people who are the employers and also the traffickers in the trade who profit from this traffic. The second point I want to bring up is that many of these illegal workers come from among the poor families, the poor rural urban migrants from our neighbouring countries. Many of them would have sold everything they have, bought a ticket or enter into heavy debt in order to come to work here. These people are actually the victims of the trade. And now they come here to make a living and when they are caught, of course, they are jailed because they have breached the law. But to cane them in such a severe manner, I am afraid it will cause us to stand very poorly in the eyes of the community of nations. I think Singaporeans would not really benefit in terms of international standing with this kind of a law. I find it also very difficult for us as a country, when we claim we want to be cultured, when we want to go onto a higher plane of social development, that we should be doing this to foreign workers. No doubt they breach the law but I really find that mandatory caning a bit too much. And I would urge the Minister to reconsider this and perhaps make it possible for the judges to look at it in a discretionary manner.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the way I could rationalize with regard to the issue on caning is that the Government has actually taken the incremental step of increasing the punishment and penalty and did not do it in 1984. I presume that the Government could have taken the very drastic step in 1984 but decided to review the situation and found the situation rather difficult to manage and have to resort to the severe penalty that has been proposed. I think the concern is really how and when we should enforce this. I share the sentiments of my Chairman of the GPC that possibly one of the administrative means is to provide for a grace period so that as much notice as possible is given, so that people are aware of this impending action and that we will not be found to be willy-nilly in enforcing such a severe punishment. Dr Lee (NCMP) has mentioned that caning was introduced for vandalism; I think we have done it for locals. We have seen the results of the very little vandalism that is taking place in our public places and I think we have shown that it is not just caning that is instituted for locals but that it is instituted as the need arises. My concern really is: will this mandatory caning be a precedent that is to be set for subsequent legislation? Do we see this particular avenue taken for future offences committed by our citizens? I share the sentiments that there ought to be differentiation in the kind of illegal immigrants, whether they are people who enter the country illegally or they are overstayers. I think there is no differentiation with regard to these two categories of people. And I believe that it is not incorrect that some of the victims could jolly well be people who have been misled into coming to Singapore to work. But I think one of the approaches that we can minimize the problem of illegal immigrants is really to help in the supply of foreign workers, to legitimize in areas where there is need to provide the permits for such people. Because I am aware that employers do take a lot of risks in hiring illegal immigrants, especially when they are caught when industrial accidents take place, whether in the construction sites or the shipyards. You cannot run away with having an illegal worker in your hands if he so happens to be one. So they are taking a lot of risks and we have to ask ourselves why such risks are being taken by them. And I think there ought to be coordination with the Ministry of Labour in this regard to try to minimize the problem. Finally, Sir, I think the area of foreign or international relations is an area that we ought to concern ourselves with because we are dealing with foreign citizens who are classified as illegal immigrants. Either they enter Singapore illegally or they overstay. And I think we would have to ensure that a fair and reasonable presentation is given to the foreign authorities with regard to this particular Bill that we are discussing about.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to make some comments on this Bill. I am against illegal immigrants. They impose on our way of life, on our social and security system. Worse still, they may bring in diseases because they are not screened. Therefore, they should be punished. It is obvious that the Ministry must be fed up or must have given up all the soft options, including sending them back after a jail sentence, to come up with such a strong measure. Moreover, I learned that it costs $10 million a year to upkeep these illegal immigrants currently serving jail sentences here. Departmental interest therefore demands that the Government should do something before the situation becomes worse. It was reported in the press - in fact, it was also told to Members of this House - that the number of illegal immigrants entering Singapore has risen by 16.6% from 3,500-odd to about 4,120, all within the space of one year. And the number of those arrested for smuggling these illegal immigrants has also increased from six in 1987 to 18 in 1988. To stamp out this problem the Ministry has decided what it considers the most effective method, and that is, caning of illegal immigrants. This is a logical administrative departmental decision, but not all administrative decisions are good decisions. I want to ask the Minister whether his department has taken into account wider national implications. What are these implications? Our country is a big tourist attraction. I believe 4 million tourists come to Singapore or have entered Singapore last year, and I believe that just one case of caning an overstayer who has not committed any crime will do us no good. We are making caning a mandatory punishment for unlawfully remaining in Singapore for a period exceeding 90 days. Mr Speaker, Sir, you never know how people can overstay, especially our Malaysian relatives who sometimes stay here for long periods and forget to renew their visas or social visit passes. You must let us know the extent of this problem on this group of foreigners. My concern is on a government-to-government level, there is understanding of each other's security and social problems. But people-to- people level, I am not so sure because this involves a punishment that has emotional connotations, unlike drug traffickers and drug pedlars. I think the nature of the offence is different from drugs. Singaporeans travel a lot, in particular the Asean area. I feel that such an action could lead to misunderstanding and ill-will. Therefore, if you look at this issue from a national viewpoint, the Minister should re-think and not make it mandatory to cane these illegal immigrants who probably in their eagerness to seek a better job here are unaware of the consequences of their actions, of our laws, when they take the risk to come here. I think it is the middle men, the agents, the employers of these illegal immigrants, the recalcitrant illegal immigrants and those who commit crimes who should be caned, not just any illegal immigrant or overstayer. I therefore suggest that we should allow the courts to decide who should be caned and who should not rather than making it mandatory. For example, I am for caning the agents, as I have said, who bring in these people to Singapore. They are like drug pushers. They are the guilty ones.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I understand it, corporal punishment is usually imposed on offences which involve violence, brutality or direct damage. It is a very serious form of punishment and extending it to immigration cases may well open the flood gates. If this is the first time that caning is being imposed for non-violent, non-damage-inflicting offences, then I respectfully urge the Senior Minister of State to reconsider the position to determine whether it is appropriate just because it is an effective deterrent. It is true that unwelcome visitors impose a financial and social burden. But there should be one standard applicable both to Singaporeans and to foreigners. We should not treat foreigners any different from Singaporeans in the types of punishment that are meted out for offences which do not involve violence or an imminent threat to violence or damage. We certainly would not appreciate the difference in treatment if the roles were reversed. I respectfully urge the Senior Minister of State to consider, as alternatives to mandatory caning, first, as the Members have earlier suggested, either discretionary caning, ie, discretion to be vested in the courts or, second, caning only for second and subsequent offenders; the reason being that there is a real risk that first-time offenders, either illegal entrants or first-time overstayers for a period exceeding 90 days, may not be as culpable as the persons who are actually responsible, ie, the perpetrators, the masterminds. This ought to be taken into account. Sir, I would recommend that the first alternative, ie, the vesting of discretion in the courts be adopted. I have heard the Senior Minister of State in his opening statement in regard to the burden that is being imposed by these illegal immigrants, in particular the time that they spend in prison, the amount of money that they spend in upkeeping them when they are there. But, Sir, mandatory caning will not encourage offenders to surrender themselves or to plead guilty for they will have nothing to lose. If they have an option and if they know that they are going to face the cane, no matter what happens if they are found guilty, whether it is a first or a second offence, they will choose to claim trial and in the normal course of events it will take many months before the trial comes up for hearing. For two reasons. One is that the court schedule is such that trial dates are not available as early as can be obtained. The second reason is that counsel can, if they want, postpone or adjourn the hearing dates on the basis that they are taking instructions, on the basis that they are not otherwise prepared to go on for trial. In the meantime and pending trial, these offenders will have to be detained. So what we have is a situation whether the detention continues for an extended period even more than the original six months, thereby increasing the social burden. The other option, of course, is discretionary caning. An offender knowing that if he gives himself up and pleads guilty, these would constitute mitigatory factors which can be put before the court to persuade the court that caning may not be the appropriate punishment, especially if it is a first offence. In the circumstances, I would urge the Senior Minister of State to consider the vesting of this discretion in the courts at least for a trial period and to monitor the results. If the number of offences increase or at least do not subside, then maybe mandatory caning may then be justified.

Sir, I am really heartened to hear all the Backbenchers arguing so passionately against caning of illegal immigrants or overstayers. Sir, yesterday I argued for Chia Thye Poh to be released. He was imprisoned for 22 years and nobody from the Backbench supported me other than the NCMP. I for a moment thought there was no heart amongst the Backbenchers, but today I see that I was wrong. The arguments so far, I do not know whether it is purely out of humanitarian grounds or that we might look bad in the eyes of other countries or, I suspect, behind our minds, we all are in fact children of immigrants. It would appear that history has completed its full cycle, we are all settled here and immigration is going to be difficult from now on, or at least for those who want to seek work here and are unable to get work permits. Sir, I know that this is a difficult problem but Members have already argued that this is not the root problem. The root problem is really an acute shortage of workers in Singapore. I think the Government has to solve that and the immigration problem would be solved. But in any event this is a problem at the moment and the Government knows that a proven deterrent is caning. It has proven for other crimes and I am sure it will be effective for this particular offence of illegal immigration. But, Sir, I think all the points brought up by Backbenchers are very good and I really support them. We are a civilized nation and if we cane people who come here, not to commit a crime but to earn a living, I think they cannot be put on par with other more serious offences. So, Sir, I would also urge the Government to reconsider mandatory caning and instead substitute perhaps a lighter one, discretion given to our judges or perhaps second timers. I think that would certainly be a more fair way of treating these people who, as has been pointed out, really do not know what they are coming in for. If they are caned, many of them, I would say, would be innocent victims.

Thank you, Sir, for the opportunity to speak on this. The points I wish to bring up actually have been brought up by earlier Members but I feel that this is one issue that goes so much against the common sense of decency that one really has to speak up against it. Sir, I sympathize and I agree that the Immigration Department and the Singapore Government have a problem of illegal workers here, whether illegal immigrants or overstayers. But, Sir, is the barbaric act of mandatory caning the right punishment for workers, albeit illegal? How many of us here can really say that none of our forebears came to Singapore because of the need to find employment, because circumstances in the countries from where they were from, forced them to seek their fortune here. And, if during that time had the colonial government then imposed a similar punishment, how many of us would be here then? Sir, I am aware of the problem having been in the Home Affairs GPC during the last term, but I believe whatever the difficulties the Immigration Department may face, mandatory caning of illegal immigrants and overstayers is not the solution. Sometimes certain problems do not have a final solution and I think we must just simply cope up with whatever best we can do.

Sir, as I have recently filed a Question for Oral Answer to the Minister for Labour on illegal foreign workers and as most of the points raised have been answered by the Senior Minister of State, I would like to withdraw that Oral Question. I would like to take this opportunity to make my comments. Firstly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I share the sentiments expressed by many speakers, especially the sentiments of the Member for Paya Lebar, and that is (a) the problem of illegal foreign workers shows very acutely that there is a very serious labour shortage problem here in Singapore, and (b) this labour shortage problem is faced by many employers, especially the local employers. As mentioned by the Member for Paya Lebar, and I am sure, as experienced by many of the MPs here at our meet-the-people sessions, we often have local employers coming to us with work permits rejected - work permits for mechanics, for skilled workers, carpenters and so on. I would like the Senior Minister of State to give, if possible, of all the illegal workers that were caught by the Ministry of Labour so far, a breakdown of the number of such illegal foreign workers? When they were caught, how many of them were working for foreign employers and how many of them were working for local employers. I do not have the figures, but I am sure if the Senior Minister of State has the figures, he will find that many of them have been working for local employers. I would therefore seriously ask the Senior Minister of State to study this problem and, if there is indeed a big problem faced by local employers in the employment of workers, especially if there is a bias in Government policy in the employment of foreign workers by local employers, can the Senior Minister of State seriously consider reviewing this policy. Sir, I support the Bill.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Immigration (Amendment) Bill. Those who have illegally over-stayed in Singapore over 90 days should be dealt with more severely so that this will prevent foreign illegal workers from committing more crimes, disturbing the peace and order of our society and creating social problems. On the question of legal foreign workers and illegal immigrants, if we amend the Immigration Act, we can prevent illegal workers from overstaying more than 90 days in our country and at the same time we will prevent legal foreign workers becoming illegal workers. Therefore I support this Bill. I remember when I went to the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre, I used to see a big hole being cut at the wire fencing there. After the hole was mended, it happened again. I suspect this has something to do with illegal immigrants.

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to respond to one of the comments that was made by the Member for Paya Lebar as well as other Members of this House, and that is, the suggestion that the root cause of the problem of illegal immigrants is the shortage of workers in Singapore. The words used were "there is work but there are no workers." However, may I take this opportunity to point out that this is not a debate on the foreign workers' problem arising from a shortage of workers. This matter has been debated in this House already and my Minister last week in this House reiterated the Government's stand on the question of foreign workers. It is perfectly clear that if we were to use the foreign workers as a solution to our problem on shortage of workers,then I am afraid there will be many, many other problems that are going to arise. First of all, there is the question of wages. I do not intend to go into all the arguments again but the problem is that if we allow an unceasing flow of foreign workers into Singapore our wages are going to be held down permanently and in fact the reason why there are so many foreign workers in Singapore is that we have high wages here. The foreign workers levy is another reason why we have had this problem of illegal immigrants. It is not merely a question of the supply of foreign workers. It is also because we have had to raise the foreign workers levy and I suspect that not a few of the illegal immigrants or the contractors or the employers of illegal immigrants do so because they wish to escape the foreign workers levy. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I also point out that if we were to have the solution as proposed, whereby the Ministry of Labour were to allow all foreign workers into Singapore on request, whether it is for local or whether it is for foreign, companies there really is not any difference in consequences. When we allow foreign workers into Singapore, one of the first things they are going to do is to depress the wages in Singapore and I do not think that is in our interest.

Sir, I am a bit confused by the Minister of State's reply. Can I ask him whether there is really a shortage of Singapore workers in Singapore? He has not answered that question, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was responding to the Member's point that the root cause of the illegal immigrant problem in Singapore is that there is a shortage of workers and therefore the solution is to relax the controls to allow foreign workers into Singapore. I was trying to explain and reiterate the point that this is not in our interest and because we cannot allow an unceasing flow of foreign workers into Singapore, therefore, that is not a solution which is tenable.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to join this debate because I felt that this question of worker shortage has already been answered by me in answer to an Oral Question recently and I felt that it is better to debate it thoroughly during the Budget debate. I understand many Members have questions and strong views on this and I would welcome a debate on it during the Budget session. However, for today, I just wish to clarify a few points. Firstly, if Members have been following the news reports of the recent arrests of illegal workers, they will find that most of these workers are working in the construction sector, shipyard sector, metal-working sector and so on. These are sectors that are allowed access to foreign workers. My Ministry has been liberally giving work permits to these sectors. In fact, for example, for the shipyard sector, there is no limit of 50%, now reduced to 40%, in terms of dependency on foreign workers. In other words, they are allowed to recruit almost as many foreign workers as they wish and yet these firms have been found with illegal foreign workers. We must ask ourselves why they are doing so. Is it because they want to evade the levy? Is it because they have previously been caught with illegal foreign workers and have been blacklisted? What is the reason? We must not be confused by all these arguments about labour shortage. It is true there is a labour shortage, basically because of our small population and rapid growth rate. We have to live within the constraints of our labour force because it is untenable just to open our doors wide and let all the foreign workers come in and to allow as many foreign workers to come in as the employers would like to have. The other point I want to clarify is that these sectors which have been found with illegal workers are actually local companies. It is not true that my Ministry favours MNCs against local firms. We are in favour of companies and employers that can help to upgrade our economy. Shipyards, construction firms, metal-working firms, hotels - these are all local employers. We do not allow certain small employers to have foreign workers basically because they are domestic-market-oriented. They do not have to face the rigours of international competition and we apply this policy equally to all the employers. We hope that they will adjust, raise their wages, find other means to live with our labour problem, because the labour shortage will not go away. Another point I want to clarify is that this Bill is aimed at illegal immigrants. It is not aimed at all illegal foreign workers or even employers of illegal foreign workers who have proper immigration papers. For example, there are some Malaysians here who are on social visit passes. They are allowed to stay here for 60 days out of 90 days. If they are found to be working illegally they could be punished under the Regulation of Employment Act which provides different penalties from this Immigration Act. We are basically aiming at those illegal immigrants who are found without proper immigration papers and working illegally. If we do not tackle this problem the danger is that many of them may eventually want to stay here, for example, from Sri Lanka, from India, and they do not want to go back to their countries. There are large numbers of such people from poor countries who want to come here and disappear into our population. So there is no choice but for the Government to take certain actions against these people. As for the question of employment of skilled workers, mechanics, carpenters and so on, my Ministry does allow employers to employ these people on a case-by-case basis. We arrange for them to be tested by VITB, for example, and where they qualify we may even allow them to have three-year work permits. So our policy has to be a flexible one, recognizing the constraints of our labour force.

Mr Speaker, Sir, having listened to half a dozen Backbenchers and the Leader of the Opposition, I think we should see this question in perspective. Do we have a shortage of workers? Yes, of course. When will we stop having a shortage of workers? When Singaporeans are as cheap as Filipinos. There are 2(r) million of us, 1� million working and earning, at the bottom, $500-$700 a month. Malaysian workers in Malaysia earn half that, maybe $300 a month, just across the Causeway, you do not have to go very far. If you are in the villages, you earn less than that. Indonesians earn maybe $100 a month, probably $70-80. Filipinos, if you are lucky, you get $50 a month. How can there not be a labour shortage? When will Filipinos, Indonesians, Malaysians, Thais, Bangladeshis, so many of them lose interest in coming to Singapore to work, illegally if need be? Because working here you can feed yourself, your family, and earn more in one year here than you can in a decade at home. The answer is, they will lose interest only when so many of them are here that a Singapore worker is paid the same as a worker in the Philippines. Then the Member for Paya Lebar's problem will be solved and we would not have to debate this issue. All this "I too am an immigrant" is mush - they sound like American Presidential candidates. Of course, our forefathers were immigrants. The country needed them, it was legal, so they came. The question now is: Is anybody proposing to open the doors wide and let in any number of immigrants, unskilled, fit, unfit, educated, uneducated, on the grounds that we should feel a brotherhood with mankind? Because that is what you are arguing - we should feel sorry for them, they are hard up, therefore let them come and, if they are caught, please do not punish them. Why not in that case abolish the penalties and let them in, rather than just have half-hearted penalties? An act is either a crime or it is not a crime. If it is a crime, it must be punished, and the punishment must be effective and be a deterrent. If it is not a crime, we should encourage people to do it, and maybe even pay people to do it. I give credit to Mr Chiam for one thing though - he conceded what even some of the other Backbenchers did not, which is, that caning will work. That is realistic. Of course, it will work. What are the options? It is a crime, he is an illegal immigrant. Hundreds come in; at times, thousands. Our jails were literally overflowing. You have a choice. You can let them in and close a blind eye, which some countries do, and after a certain number of years you declare an amnesty, and then they all become citizens. Canada does this regularly. You read about their experience. The more amnesties they have, the more illegal immigrants come in, because they know for sure they will never get caned, they will just get citizenship in good time. I have not heard anybody suggest that. The second option is to jail them. Some of the illegal immigrants would love it. Because the Ministry of Home Affairs has told us - I am not in-charge, but I understand this is so - illegal immigrants have come in, torn up their passports, destroyed them, and surrendered themselves, eagerly waiting to go into jail, so as to be clothed and fed and looked after in comfort. And it was necessary to make life so miserable for them that, finally, they wrote to their families back in South Asia, some place, to come and bail them out. Otherwise, they were quite happy to live the rest of their lives being stateless, unemployed, but in clover. So you want to jail them? Therefore, cane them. Not anybody, not everyone who overstayed, not somebody who forgot to renew his visa, but after 90 days (3 months). That is a very select group. You are here for 90 days and you tell me that you did not know this was the law of the land, and you thought you were entitled to be here? It is a bit hard to believe, isn't it? And as for not knowing that this is the law of the land, if we make it so, everybody will know it. And after the first caning, we need not even broadcast it. Everybody knows that if you bring in more than a certain amount of drugs, you will get hanged. Nobody makes out a bleeding heart case for drug pushers. Every work permit holder knows that if you come here on a work permit, you do not live with or marry a Singaporean without permission. It is written down before you come. And this too will be the law of the land. If Members think it helpful, the same way as we tell all aeroplane passengers before they come - please don't smuggle drugs, you will get hanged - you can tell them before they arrive, you have to do it to boat passengers too - if you get caught being an illegal immigrant in Singapore, you will get caned. I am sure if we do this, we will only need to cane a few, but the problem will be solved.

Mr Tan, do you want to make a clarification? I will allow you to make one last clarification.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to refer to the statement made by the Minister. Sir, we are talking about the problem of shortage of workers. The problem here is that the Singapore local businessmen cannot get Singaporean workers, and they also cannot get work permits. That is the main problem. It is not that they resort to illegal immigrants. It is that they truly cannot get Singapore workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Mr Tan has misunderstood me or did not hear me clearly. I said that many of these illegal immigrants who were caught were caught in shipyards etc, which are given work permits liberally. So please be clear about this point.

But, Sir, this Bill is going to be across-the-board. There will come a time when these people will also employ illegal workers if they cannot find workers in Singapore. So this Bill is across-the-board. It is not just geared towards the shipbuilders and the construction workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to thank the Members who have spoken up in support of the Bill, despite some of the reservations which they have made. I would like to address these comments and reservations individually. I must particularly thank the Chairman of the GPC for Home Affairs and Law for his Committee's support, despite what he called "an agonizing Bill". Sir, the Chairman for the GPC for Home Affairs and Law, Dr Arthur Beng, suggested that we should consider a two weeks' grace period for those who are already here to surrender to the authorities, so that they will not be caught under the new enhanced penalty. Let me point out that in the first two weeks of this year, 1989, there were no less than six reports in the Straits Times alone on the problem of immigration offenders and illegal workers: 5th January - "Authorities watch 6 pick-up points for illegal foreign workers"; 7th January - "Man jailed 3 years for bringing in illegal workers"; 8th January - "Ministry steps up checks to nab illegal immigrants"; 11th January - "No permits: $40,600 fine for 9 bosses"; 14th January - "Tougher penalties planned to stem tide of illegal workers". Caning was mentioned as a possible deterrent. On the same day, Sir, there was another article suggesting that the Government should make bosses of illegal workers pay heavily for their offences. Newspapers in the other languages also carried reports on this matter. This Bill was introduced for the First Reading on 16th January, and on 17th January amendments to the Immigration Act were reported in the papers, including the new provision for mandatory caning. Sir, these reports are clear warning to immigration offenders and their employers that new and tougher measures are about to be implemented to deal with them. Ample warning of the new caning penalty has been given. In fact, all those immigration offenders who are now here in Singapore, will be wise to promptly surrender themselves to be dealt with according to current laws. Overstayers who choose to stay on illegally must face the new punishment, including caning. Those who enter Singapore illegally, once the new provisions are in place, will be charged under the amended Immigration Act and they will face caning, if convicted. Sir, the question of giving a grace period, hence, is not pertinent in this case because we have so much publicity on the matter already. However, let me assure the Chairman of the GPC for Home Affairs and Law that when charges are contemplated in specific cases, the background will be carefully considered. Each case will be considered on its own merit.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek a clarification. Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. I would like to reiterate my point that all these press releases have been so effective, now they are trying to run out. That is why I quoted in the newspaper report of 25th January. They are trying to get out. Why waste our resources trying to catch those who are getting out? Let them surrender. Make it an additional point or another plus factor. Do not fill up our jails with these people, send them back! They will help us solve our problem. We do not even have to keep them for the six months under the present regulations. Let them go back home and spread the message for us - "You will be caned!" I did support the Bill, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is exactly what I say. For those who are already here - overstaying, breaking our law - my advice to them is surrender now to the authority, you will be dealt with under the current law. And the current law says that for those who overstay for less than 90 days, in fact they will not be sent to jail, a fine can be imposed. Jail sentence is not mandatory and they can be dealt with appropriately. That is already in the existing law. It is only if they overstay 90 days that under the current law it is mandatory jailing of six months up to a term of maximum two years.

Sir, now, about these people who would be sent to jail. If they were to be sent to jail, they may not want to own up. That is my point.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if they surrender themselves now, they will be dealt with under the current provisions. Let me draw the Member's attention to section 15(3)(a) of the Immigration Act which is not being amended, Sir. It says: 'Any person who without reasonable cause contravenes this section [unlawful entry or overstaying] shall be guilty of an offence and -

Explanation, Sir. It was not a social problem. It was a political problem.

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is a matter of opinion. I think it is a social problem to have people defacing public property, damaging public property, even stealing insulating oil from electrical substations. The main thing is that we look for a remedy that is effective. Caning is effective. Let us apply it to deter the would-be offenders. He makes a very impassionate plea for all these innocent people who are trapped in this illegal immigration offence which my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry, has amply disposed of. Let me just point out that they are not innocent offenders of our immigration law. If, as Dr Lee has said, they paid a great deal of money to acquire forged documents, how is it that they are prepared to pay this sum of money without knowing that they are doing something that is wrong? Surely they must be aware of the fact that the documents they are obtaining are obtained illegally. Otherwise, it would not cost such vast sums of money. Sir, next I would turn to the Member for Paya Lebar, Mr Philip Tan, who has spoken on the problem of employers who are faced with a labour shortage. My colleagues have dealt with the labour policy aspect. Let me take Members through the law enforcement aspect. As I said in my Second Reading speech, the number of illegal workers in Singapore is indeed related to the demand for their service. The more the demand from employers, the more will come. The problem is not just that of the foreigners alone. Singaporeans are contributing to the growing numbers of illegal workers here by attracting them and by giving them employment, and some by giving them shelter. However, the shortage of labour is no justification for deliberately breaking our labour laws and immigration laws and for encouraging and enticing foreigners to blatantly violate our laws. Such violations cannot be tolerated. Sir, let me give the Member two examples from another aspect of maintaining public order and safety. As Members of Parliament, we are all aware - we have heard this complaint before - of people who urinate in the lifts in public housing estates. Sir, the absence of a nearby toilet is no justification for a person to use an HDB lift as a toilet. This problem of urinating in the lifts in our public housing estates cannot be condoned. It must be eradicated. How can we achieve this objective if every offender gets off by pleading that nature's call was beyond his or her control and that the lift was the nearest solution? The second example, Sir, in order to get a driving licence, every learner driver has to invest some money, some time and effort to acquire sufficient driving skills to pass the test. If the person does not have the money or lack the skills, he will not pass the test and he will not be issued with a driving licence. Such a person cannot disregard the law and proceed to drive a car without a licence just because he needs the convenience of a car. Otherwise, how can the Police ensure the safety of all roadusers? Sir, these examples show that people must not disregard laws that are made for good reasons to serve the common good. Anyone who disregards our laws must be dealt with accordingly. Just as it is no excuse to plead that nature's call was urgent or there was a pressing need to drive, employers cannot resort to illegal workers because their applications for foreign workers were rejected. We cannot allow employers to make a mockery of our immigration and employment laws for their own interests. As regards the labour policy, may I suggest that the Members take it up with the Minister for Labour separately. He is the most appropriate person for you to direct your eloquent pleas and cogent appeals.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just interject for a little while? I think the Minister, when he used the two examples, those offenders had choices. In this case, the Singapore businessman has no choice. If the Minister can give them Singapore workers, I can submit all the applications of these employers to him and let him supply them with Singapore workers. They have no choice. So I am pleading for them that we must solve the basic problem, ie, the work permit. Whereas in his two examples, they had a choice. They had the choice of going to the toilet.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it would be an over-simplification just to say that they had no choice. All Singaporean employers have a choice, as the Minister for Labour has said. In fact, some of those who have been caught employing illegal workers are in sectors which have been given work permits liberally. The Member for Paya Lebar also asked whether caning will be effective since caning is not allowed for females, those under the age of 17 and those above the age of 50. I understand that most of the illegal immigrants who are caught on the worksites are able-bodied young men within the age limit where the law can apply. He also sought reassurance on clause 5. In his view, it is vague. The presumptive power that is contained in clause 5 may be abused. Sir, the presumption introduced by clause 5 is not a departure from established practice. There are similar provisions against occupiers of any premises which are involved in illegal activities and these presumptions can be found in many other legislations. Let me give you some examples: the Arms Offences Act, the Betting Act and the Common Gaming Houses Act. Let me just quickly refer to two of these Acts for the specific examples. In the Arms Offences Act (Cap. 14), section 9 states: 'Where any arm is found in or on any premises, the occupier of such premises shall be deemed to be in possession of such arm unless he proves that some other person was in possession thereof, or that he had no knowledge or reasonable means of knowing that such arm was in or on such premises and that he had taken all reasonable precautions against such arm being kept in or on such premises.' So a presumption is already in existence in this particular law. Let me refer him to the Common Gaming Houses Act (Cap. 49), section 8(3) which states: 'Any person who is the tenant, lessee, occupier or person in charge of any public place which is used for gaming shall, unless the person proves that he has no knowledge that the premises are used for gaming, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $20,000 and not more than $200,000 and shall also be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.' Sir, the presumption is not an unreasonable imposition of guilt on occupiers. First, the arrested foreigner must be an immigration offender. In other words, an overstayer or someone who has come into Singapore illegally. Secondly, the immigration offender must be caught on the premises with possession of tools or implements or engaged in some activities which can be construed as working. Only when these conditions are met will the occupier be presumed to have employed a foreigner. Sir, in effect, the amendment places a duty on all occupiers and employers to check the passports of prospective foreign employees. It is the duty of all employers to ensure that foreign employees are in possession of valid work permits and that no unauthorized persons should gain access to their premises. Here, Sir, I would like to address a point brought up by some Members that some employers may have been misled by forged documents. In such cases, then it is a defence which the employer can use. It is an argument in the favour of the employer to say that he has been misled and I am sure if the immigration investigators have this fact and if it can be ascertained that the documents were such good forgery as to be able to mislead an average person, then the employer will not be charged. Sir, some Members have also pointed out that the traffickers who bring in all these illegal workers, illegal immigrants are just as much to be blamed, and that they should also be dealt with severely. In this amendment we have introduced some new provisions, but it does not mean that we have overlooked the offences committed by the traffickers. There are provisions in the Immigration Act as of now which deals with the offence of trafficking. Let me point out to Members section 57 (1)(c) spells out the offence of illegally conveying aliens into Singapore. The penalties are imprisonment for a term not less than two years and not more than five years and a fine not exceeding $10,000 and caning. So under the current Act caning is already provided for traffickers. Therefore, traffickers now are being dealt with more severely than illegal immigrants, overstayers and employers. Even before this amendment, the punishment for traffickers may be more severe. Let me give Members an example. The Straits Times reported on 14th January that the boatman convicted of smuggling illegal immigrants into Singapore was sentenced to four years jail and 18 strokes of the cane. His sampan and motor were confiscated. Sir, I believe that existing penalties are sufficient to deal with traffickers. Sir, the hon. Mr Loh Meng See suggested that the move towards mandatory caning could be just an incremental measure being undertaken by the Govern- ment. He is correct in his assumption because two years ago we had already considered introducing mandatory caning to deal with the problem. But we have decided to watch how the situation develops. Is it going to improve on its own with the existing penalties or do we have to take sterner measures to deter these illegal immigrants? The figures I have given Members in my Second Reading speech prove that the trend is upward, and if nothing is done it will get worse. Hence we have taken this incremental step, as he has called it. Sir, I now come to the point that has been taken up by most of the Members, that is, the additional penalty of mandatory caning with a minimum of three strokes. Some Members have asked: why make it mandatory, why not leave it to the discretion of the judges? Others like the Member for Ayer Rajah have asked us to consider what will happen to all the thousands of Singaporeans who travel abroad. I believe he is concerned that Singaporeans travelling abroad may have to face the wrath of somebody who has been caned by the Singapore Government. Well, we should not allow ourselves to be held to ransom. If foreigners choose to come to Singapore and blatantly break our laws, should we take a soft approach to them, pack them off nicely and say, "Please, don't do it again and leave our Singaporeans whom you encounter in your home country in peace." No, that cannot be, Sir. Anyone who comes to Singapore and chooses to break our laws must face the penalties. This is the law of the land. Likewise, any Singaporean who goes abroad, if he chooses to break the laws of the countries that he is visiting, he will have to face those penalties imposed by the law in that country. Sir, let me come back to this question of mandatory caning. I must, first of all, point out that there are many precedents in our law to provide for a mandatory minimum caning. For instance, we touched on that earlier on, the offence of vandalism. The penalty for acts of vandalism is a minimum of three strokes. Offences under the Arms Offences Act, Misuse of Drugs Act, and certain sections of the Penal Code are also punished with mandatory minimum caning. I would like to remind Members that not all immigrant offenders are subjected to caning under this amendment. Earlier on, in response to a point raised by the Member for Fengshan, I have pointed out that in section 15(3)(a) of the Immigration Act, for those who overstay less than 90 days they face a lighter punishment. So what are the alternatives to deal with long-term overstayers who deliberately break our laws, come in illegally and those who overstayed more than 90 days? Please, be quite clear on this. We are not talking about the occasional overstayers who overstayed for a period of a few days or a few weeks, relatives from Malaysia who happened to have overlooked renewing their social visit pass for one or two weeks. These are not the people we are concerned with. We are concerned with people who come in, hidden in the bottom of a sampan, in the boot of cars, or by some other yet undetected means to deliberately break our laws. So what are the alternatives that can be considered to deal with this problem? Increase the prison sentence beyond the current two-year maximum provided by the Immigration Act? That is one alternative. However, if we do so, we will end up with more immigration offenders in our jails. As I have mentioned earlier, they already make up 17% of our prison population. Dr Tan has pointed out that it cost $10 million, $9.4 million to be more precise, to maintain this group of prisoners. So increasing the prison term will only place an intolerable strain on our prison system. We can increase the fine. But immigration offenders are unlikely to pay the fines. They are people who are poor, who come here trying to make some money; they are not about to part with those hard-earned dollars. Heavier fines, if imposed, will then end up having to be commuted to a longer imprisonment term with the undesirable consequences which we are all aware of. As my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry has mentioned, some of the immigration offenders whom we have locked up in our prisons have been known to find our prisons comfortable and the food that they are getting much better than the food they were used to get at home. So as a result imprisonment is not at all an effective deterrent. So the point here is that we are facing a serious problem, a problem which cannot be dealt with by the usual approach. We have to deliver a very clear signal to would-be immigration offenders that we will not tolerate such violations. For this reason a short prison term of three months and caning with three strokes is considered the minimum needed to have an effective deterrent effect. Earlier on the Non-Constituency MP, Dr Lee, brought up acts of vandalism. Prior to 1966 vandalism was very much on the rise causing a great deal of public money to be spent on cleaning up after the vandals and repairing the damage caused by them. In 1966 mandatory caning with three strokes for persons convicted under the Vandalism Act was introduced. There was a significant reduction in acts of vandalism after caning was introduced. Dr Lee testified to that earlier. As a result, Sir, Singaporeans today are able to enjoy a clean garden city environment despite having 86% of the population living in congested high-rise public housing estates. This would not have been possible if we had not taken a tough stand against vandals. Sir, a minimum three-stroke penalty means that would-be illegal workers would be left in no doubt at all as to the consequences of violating our immigration laws. It will be very clear to all that a certain minimum punishment awaits them. And it is for this reason that we believe that a minimum penalty is necessary. We want to deliver a clear signal: Don't come here to try your luck with breaking our laws and don't come here to try your luck with our courts hoping that you could get off with a light penalty. This is the very minimum penalty that you can expect if you decide to come here to break our laws. Sir, I believe that this is the only way to deter such people and to avoid the social consequences of having a large number of illegal aliens in our midst. Sir, I believe I have dealt with most of the reservations and comments raised by Members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise on one last clarification. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his conscientious and detailed replies. We have received many clarifications on practically all points. As a Member of the Backbench ---

Dr Beng, can you make your clarification, please.

Sir, my clarification is this. Will the Senior Minister of State in his reply to me give an undertaking that this Bill will not be gazetted earlier than two weeks after the passing by this House?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I give no such undertaking. The gazetting of the Bill and the bringing into operation of the powers contained in this Amendment will be dealt with under the normal procedures. The Bill will have to be sent to the Presidential Council for Minority Rights and it would then have to go to the President for the President's Assent before it can be gazetted as a law. That takes some time and it is the usual time.

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. - [Dr Lee Boon Yang]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng] Adjourned accordingly at Fifteen minutes past Four o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.