IMMIGRATION ACT

For the purposes of this Lecture, the syllabus has been divided into
the following parts:

a) Definitions

b) Immigration Offenders

c) Harbouring of Immigration Offenders

d) Employment of Immigration Offenders

 1. DEFINITIONS

a) ‘employ’ means to engage or use the service of the person

whether under a contract of service or otherwise, with or without
remuneration.

b) ‘harbour’ means to to give food or shelter, and includes the act of

assisting a person in any way to evade apprehension.

c) ‘occupier’ in relation to any premises or place includes

:
i) the person having the charge, management or control of either
the whole or part of the premises or place, either on his own
account or as an agent ; and
ii) a contractor who is carrying out building operations or
construction works on behalf of some and other persons
2. IMMIGRATION OFFENDER

d) entry and exit by authorised entry points only unless compelled by accident
or reasonable cause (ss5 & 5A)
e) illegal entry {s6(1)} unless:
i) in possession of a valid entry permit or re-entry permit
ii) in possession of a valid pass or he is exempted.
iii) NOTE :
- Singapore citizen can enter Singapore without any pass or
permit
- Burden on Defendant to prove that he is Singapore citizen
f) embarkation forms {s6(2)}
g) prohibited immigrants (s8)
h) unlawful entry or presence after the cancellation of any permit or
certificate or after the making of a declaration that any person’s presence is
unlawful. {s15(1)} (exceeding and not exceeding 90 days)
i) contrast s6 (1)
ii) s62
i) unlawful return after the removal after having been removed or otherwise
lawfully sent out of Singapore, enters and resides in Singapore without the
permission in writing of the Controller of Immigration (s36)
j) signing on as crew to enter unlawfully (s42)

k) general offences (s57)

i) any person who

a) attempts unlawfully to enter Singapore in contravention of any

provision of this Act, other than s6(1), or the regulations.
aa) abets any person to leave Singapore in contravention of the
provisions of this act or the regulations;

4. HARBOURING
Any person who - s57(1)
(d) harbours any person
(i) Whom the defendant knows has acted in contravention of the
provisions of this Act or the regulations;
(ii) With reckless disregard as to whether he has acted in contravention
of the provisions of this Act or the regulations;

PP V Jeevan s/o Ahoorum

(iii) Negligently failing to ascertain as to whether he has acted in
contravention of the provisions of this Act or the regulations

PP v Manoj Kumar Tiwari

KUEH AH LEK v PP (1995) 3 SLR 252 *

It is not disputed that Kannadasan slept in the uncompleted building.

However this was not sufficient to constitute an act of
harbouring… .harbouring involves a positive act of providing
shelter…..there was insufficient evidence that the appellant knew that
Kannadasan was sleeping in the uncompleted building. There was thus
insufficient evidence to show that the appellant permitted kannadasan to
sleep there. That being so, there was insufficient evidence to show the
positive act of providing shelter. Therefore the presumption in s57(7) did
not arise.
LIM DEE CHEW v PP(1997) 3 SLR 956 *

…the person who provided shelter or food (the harbourer) might not
necessarily have been the owner of the premises. The owner of the
premises might have rented it to the tenant who might have, rented it to a
sub-tenant. Whether, if the sub-tenant turned out to be an illegal
immigrant, the owner was held as the harbourer would have depended on
the facts of each particular case and the agreement which the owner of
the premises had with the tenant.
Owner - possible harbourer- prove he had actual knowledge of sub-
tenants- and also knew/ reasonably know they were illegal immigrants
Even if owner’s prior consent/ required sought, such that owner knew
about the sub-tenants-whether the owner harboured the immigrants
would depend on whether he had relinquished control over the premises
•-Ascertain having regard to degree of control owner had over the rent
•-If tenant negotiated rent, free of interference from the owner ---then
tenant would have been the person who had harboured the illegal
immigrant

5. EMPLOYMENT

S 57(1)(e) Any person who -employs any person who has acted in
contravention of the provisions of s6(1), 15 or 36 or the
regulations;
NOTE : s57(8) ; Occupier of the premises or place has employed an
immigration offender knowing that the immigration offender
is found at any premises or places other than premises used
for residential purposes.
For ss 57(1)(d) and 57(1)(e), the defendant must further prove that he
had exercised due diligence to ascertain that the pass/permit was as the
material time valid. (ss57(9) & (10)

In order to show due diligence, the accused charged with harbouring

must :
a) Inspect the original pass, permit and/or passport
b) check that the particulars in the passport correspond with
the particulars in the pass/ permit
c) if the employer’s name is stated in the pass/permit, the
landlord has to check with the employer that the person’s
particular’s corresponds with the employer’s records.
In order to show due diligence, the accused charged with employing must :

a) Inspect the original pass, permit and /or passport

b) obtain the necessary consent from the Controller of Immigration

GUNA SEGAR v PP (1996) 2 SLR 283

So far as knowledge in relation to the employment charge was concerned,

the burden was on the prosecution to prove this beyond reasonable doubt.
From the terms of s57(8), Parliament intended to draw a distinction
between one who employed immigration offenders in the course of
business and a householder who employed a maid. This former could be
expected to know something about legal requirements and procedures for
employing a foreign worker, as well as what to look out for in order to
detect an immigration offender. The evidential burden is thus on the him to
prove that he did not employ the immigration offender knowingly. There is
no such burden in the latter case.

LIM DEE CHEW v PP (1997) 3 SLR 956

…..to determine who the employer is, one has to determine who has the
control over the workers, and who is the person who supervises them and gives
them their instructions. Another factor is, who is the person who determines
the quantum of their remuneration. Once this is ascertained, the presumption
under s57(8) and the amendments under sub-ss (9) and (10) would apply to
him.
 Assisting, encouraging or inducing giving of shelter to
immigration offenders –S57B

- Targets middlemen, including housing agents and foreign

labour agents, who assist landlords in the renting of their
premises to an immigration offender in return for a monetary
reward.
- Such persons would be presumed to have assisted, encouraged
or induced the landlord into giving shelter to the offender
unless they are able to show evidence that they ahd conducted
the same 3 due diligence checks.
- Does not absolve the landlords from primary responsibility