Debated in Parliament on 3 Nov 2014.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".
Human trafficking is the acquisition of an individual by improper means, such as force, fraud or deception, with the aim of exploiting them. It is a lucrative transnational crime involving the recruitment, manipulation and abuse of vulnerable individuals. Many have referred to Trafficking-in-Persons, or TIP in short, as modern-day slavery and the global problem remains acute.
Singapore is often described as a destination country for TIP. Through our existing criminal laws and active enforcement, the TIP situation in Singapore has been kept under control. Notwithstanding this, Singapore remains vulnerable to such crimes, not least because of our attractive economic conditions and status as a regional hub. This challenge is exacerbated by the increased movement of persons across national boundaries today and the ease with which they can do so. As such, we must continue to effectively detect and deter TIP activities with strong laws, supported by robust enforcement and victim support measures.
Why do we need this specific law? While we have laws in place, such as the Penal Code, the Women's Charter, the Children and Young Persons Act, the Immigration Act and the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act to criminalise specific aspects of TIP, these do not operate under a consistent TIP framework. Furthermore, these laws were enacted some time back and would not have factored in prevailing TIP trends.
For example, the Women's Charter is gender-specific and does not cover situations where men are trafficked. The Immigration Act deals more with the smuggling of persons into Singapore, as opposed to trafficking in persons. The Children and Young Persons Act provides protection to a child or young person who is defined as under 14 and 16 years of age respectively, whereas the international standard classifies persons below 18 years of age as children for TIP purposes. Lastly, while the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA) protects foreign worker well-being and employment conditions, the penalties contained within were crafted for employment offences, not the more serious labour trafficking offences.
Mdm Speaker, allow me to emphasise that underlying this Bill is the need for us to show care and compassion for people, whether Singaporean or foreign, who have been, and continue to be, victims of human trafficking. If one is talking about vulnerability, this is a
Page: 77
group of individuals that are extremely vulnerable, perhaps the most vulnerable of the vulnerable and, therefore, we must, out of principle, take steps to protect and care for them. Our role is not just to help them – we need to partner them and give them a sense of hope. We should partner them to restore their dignity – their dignity as a person, as a human being.
When I visited a local shelter this year, I was moved by the commitment of the staff in their care for trafficked women. During a tour of the centre, they shared the centre's philosophy: "It is worthwhile to leave the whole world behind to save one life." Such is the commitment of the many good people who assist the vulnerable who fall prey to trafficking syndicates.
The Bill shares that ethos. Indeed, if a syndicate is deterred from exploiting just one person as a result of this Bill, it would have served its purpose. Of course, it is hoped that the Bill will protect more than just one person from being exploited.
It was against this backdrop that I had mooted last year the proposal to introduce a dedicated law against human trafficking. I was very encouraged by the Government's shared concern and their support. There was close collaboration with the interagency Trafficking-In-Persons (TIP) Taskforce, co-led by MHA and MOM over the past 11 months.
As part of developing the Bill, the Taskforce and I also canvassed views from all segments of society. This is in the hope of creating a law that reflects the values of the community and one that we can collectively endorse and co-own. Between March and April 2014, four separate public dialogues were conducted. These complemented two private dialogue sessions with NGOs, VWOs and interested Singaporeans. A consultation paper was also hosted on the REACH portal from 19 March to 18 April 2014. Almost 300 individuals, including NGOs, business leaders, religious groups and students, participated in the focus group dialogue sessions while others provided written feedback.
Key findings during the public consultations were considered carefully. For example, it was raised during the public consultation that Singapore's definition of key TIP terms should not only be closely aligned with international benchmarks and standards, but should also be adapted to suit the local context. Another key finding was that the Bill should cover TIP perpetrators and all parties in the criminal value chain, including abettors, middlemen and facilitators of TIP offences. With the valuable feedback from internal and external partners and stakeholders, the draft was refined and augmented to ensure that this enforcement Bill would allow Singapore to deal holistically and decisively with human trafficking in Singapore and regionally.
Page: 78
The objectives of the Prevention of Human Trafficking Bill before Parliament today are four-fold. First, the Bill clarifies our legal regime by providing a formal definition of TIP and prescribing appropriate penalties to allow us to deal with human trafficking in a more targeted and deterrent manner. Second, it empowers enforcement agencies with the necessary investigation and enforcement levers to tackle TIP. Third, it provides measures to protect and support trafficked victims and encourage the reporting of trafficking or suspected trafficking activities. Lastly, the Bill will bring Singapore closer in line with international standards and uplift efforts to combat TIP in Singapore and the surrounding region.
Mdm Speaker, let me now highlight the key aspects and provisions of the Bill.
Clause 3(1) creates the offence of trafficking-in-persons and makes clear the three necessary elements for the offence to be made out. First, there must be an "act" of recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of an individual. Second, this act must be accompanied by "means" of a threat or use of force, or any other form of coercion, abduction, fraud or deception, or of an abuse of power or a position of vulnerability, or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over the trafficked victim. Third, these must be done for the "purpose of exploitation", such as sexual exploitation, forced labour or organ removal. As TIP is a serious charge, all three elements must be proved. Cases which fall short of the required thresholds may still be taken up by other existing laws, where appropriate.
The trafficking offence is gender-neutral, meaning that the trafficking of male and female victims is equally covered. The consent of a trafficked victim to the intended exploitation is also irrelevant when determining whether the offence is made out, that is, the offender cannot claim his victim’s consent to be a valid defence. The elements of the offence and definition of key terminology are adapted from and are consistent with the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime, or the UN TIP Protocol, in short.
Also, as aligned with international standards, the Bill defines a person under 18 years old as a child, and clause 3(2) stipulates lower requirements for the trafficking offence to be made out for child victims in recognition of their vulnerability to exploitation. To afford a child greater protection under the law, there is no requirement for the Prosecution to prove the methods or means used. It is sufficient for the Prosecution to show that there was an act to recruit, transport, transfer, harbour or receive a child victim for the purposes of exploitation.
Page: 79
As TIP is a transnational crime, clause 3(4) holds a trafficking offender liable in Singapore, even if his acts which comprise the offence straddle between Singapore and another jurisdiction. This recognises the transnational nature of trafficking activities where the acts of recruitment and transportation often take place overseas, with Singapore being the destination or the transit point.
Besides traffickers, persons who abet the offence are similarly liable to be punished. Clause 5 sets out acts which constitute abetment of the trafficking offence under the Penal Code. These include conveying instructions, providing transport or shelter, or participating in any act to promote the actual or intended exploitation of the trafficked victim. The scope of this clause covers ringleaders and masterminds who order their subordinates to carry out the trafficking acts, as well as middlemen who knowingly make arrangements to place trafficked victims with their exploiters.
It will additionally be an offence under clause 6 of the Bill for a person to receive any payment in connection with the exploitation of another person with the knowledge that he or she has been trafficked. This targets persons, such as pimps and labour agents, who have received payment from the trafficking activity but who are not directly involved in the trafficking offence itself or in the abetment of it.
Taken together, these provisions create an encompassing umbrella of offences that target the main TIP actors and allow us to take them firmly to task.
Having outlined the scope of the trafficking and related offences, let me now touch on the penalties. To provide sufficient deterrence and reflect the severity of human trafficking, the Bill prescribes stiff penalties in the form of mandatory imprisonment terms and fines. Under clause 4(1), a first-time offender of a trafficking offence shall be punished with a fine not exceeding $100,000 and with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
Convicted persons may further be liable to caning not exceeding six strokes, which can be imposed at the Court's discretion where warranted. To send a stronger signal against those who are minded to re-offend, the penalties for a repeat offender will be a fine not exceeding $150,000 and imprisonment for up to 15 years, essentially up to one-and-a-half times what a first offender could be liable to receive. Caning of up to nine strokes will also be mandatory for repeat offenders. Similar penalties are prescribed for the offence of knowingly receiving payment in connection with exploitation of a trafficked person.
In calibrating the penalties, we have benchmarked them against comparable crimes of similar gravity in other Acts, such as the offence of importing a woman for purposes of prostitution under section 373A of the Penal Code which also provides for a maximum 10-
Page: 80
year imprisonment sentence. The provision of a caning sentence is also found in other crimes, such as abduction and sexual assault, and is apt in this instance, given that elements of force and coercion, as well as the serious exploitation of the human form, are present in trafficking offences.
Clause 4(2) also provides for the Courts to consider imposing heavier penalties within the prescribed range of penalties, where aggravating circumstances are present. These aggravating circumstances are not exhaustively defined and may include situations where death or injury is caused to the victim, where drugs or weapons are used during the act, where the offender has abused his position of authority or trust, or where the victim is particularly vulnerable.
Madam, the enforcement powers are set out in Part 3 of the Bill. Clause 7(2) vests the relevant inspectors from MOM and MOH with authority to use the powers in Part 3 as "enforcement officers" under the Bill. Police Officers are similarly empowered to invoke the powers in the Bill and can, additionally, rely on their powers conferred under the Criminal Procedure Code.
The specific powers in clauses 8 to 16 are mapped over from existing legislation, primarily the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. These include the power to enter and search premises, interview and gather evidence, retain and dispose of property seized during investigations and to arrest without warrant. These focused powers have proven to be necessary and effective by MOM officers in investigating labour violation cases and will be similarly useful in the context of investigations into potential trafficking cases.
I now come to the victim protection and support provisions under Part 4 of the Bill. Much has been discussed regarding the welfare of trafficked victims during the public consultation exercise and also leading up to today’s debate. I would like to take this opportunity to explain what the clauses purport to do and how they work with the existing victim care framework.
First, on the measures to protect victims in sensitive cases, the Bill adapts relevant provisions from the State Courts Act, Supreme Court of Judicature Act and the Women's Charter. Under clause 18(1), the Court can order the entire proceedings relating to a sexual exploitation case, or any part of it, to be held in camera, which means that it is closed to the public and the media. Where the victim in a sexual exploitation case is a child, in-camera proceedings are mandatory. In addition, a gag order will be in force for all proceedings regarding sexual exploitation. Clause 18(2) prohibits any person from publishing the name, address or photograph, or any other fact, which is likely to lead to the identification of the trafficked victim in such proceedings. These measures protect victims from being identified
Page: 81
and encourage them to testify in confidence.
This does not mean that sensitive cases that do not involve sexual exploitation will be denied similar protection. Clause 18(5) expressly provides that the Court's powers under section 7 of the State Courts Act and section 8 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act – that is, to order any proceedings to be held in camera or to prohibit the publication or disclosure of the identity of a victim or witness, are not prejudiced. Under those Acts, the Court can order such proceedings to be conducted in camera if the Court is satisfied that it is "expedient in the interests of justice, public safety, public security or propriety, or for other sufficient reason to do so". Notwithstanding, it should be noted that it is a fundamental pillar of criminal justice that trials be conducted in open Court. Any deviation deservedly requires strong justification and much will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
With regard to victim support, currently victims of abuse, including trafficked victims, are provided a range of services which includes temporary accommodation, food, counselling services, medical care and temporary employment. Each victim is assessed thoroughly, as the needs differ from individual to individual and the support measures are tailored and provided accordingly.
The Bill endorses this established approach and codifies it under clause 19(1) which states that the Director of Social Welfare – or any person authorised by him – may provide trafficked victims with any such assistance as he considers practicable and necessary. This includes, but is not limited to, temporary shelter and counselling services. Both measures have been expressly cited as examples because they are commonly provided to victims to ensure they are quickly removed from their environment of harm and are supported in their recovery. Clause 25 makes a consequential amendment to section 16 of the Children and Young Person’s Act to allow the Director of Social Welfare, in his capacity as a protector under the Act, to commit trafficked child victims to a place of temporary care and protection where their safety can be ensured and they can receive specialised support.
I should also add that these discretionary victim support measures complement other provisions in existing legislation, which we have refrained from duplicating in the Bill, which the judge hearing the case can nonetheless leverage on. For example, section 359 of the Criminal Procedure Code continues to apply and already makes it mandatory for a Court to consider whether to make a compensation order after convicting a person of an offence. Such order must be made where it is appropriate. This provides a means to compel an offender to pay damages to the victim, especially where the victim may not have the financial means or faces difficulties seeking such redress from the offender.
Collectively, it can, therefore, be seen that we have a robust and flexible victim care framework in place; one that meets individual needs and signals our commitment to this
Page: 82
area.
I will now touch briefly on the other provisions in the Bill. To encourage the reporting of trafficking or suspected trafficking activity, clause 21 makes clear that information provided by informers cannot be admitted as evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding. In addition, no witness shall be obliged or permitted to disclose the name or address of any informer in respect of the offence, or state any matter which might lead to his discovery. Clause 24 empowers the Minister for Home Affairs to make rules for the purposes of the Bill.
Mdm Speaker, human trafficking is real, cruel and must be stemmed. We, as a society, must speak up for the voiceless and helpless by sending as strong a signal as we can against these serious crimes. Indeed, this is the ethos behind the Bill. To prevent TIP from taking root in our community, our laws have to be comprehensive yet targeted, possess sufficient bite to punish perpetrators and deter would-be offenders and offer protection and support to those in need. The Prevention of Human Trafficking Bill strengthens these fronts by supplementing our existing suite of laws and measures. It raises our standards of fighting TIP, both locally and internationally, and will serve as a beacon to our enforcement officers who are involved in this effort.
On this note, I would like to place on record my thanks to the TIP Taskforce, led by MHA and MOM, for their invaluable partnership in the past one year. I experienced first-hand their deep resolve to curb human trafficking in Singapore. Their partnership was especially meaningful to me, when debating and discussing the operational needs of the enforcement officers who will be relying on the powers contained in the Bill when carrying out operations on the ground. I would also like to thank MSF, MOH, MinLaw, AGC, Singapore Police Force and ICA for the valuable discussions we had on the policy considerations for the Bill. It has been a privilege to work alongside these officers, and the officers in MHA and MOM who are dedicated to the cause of combating TIP and, of course, the 300 individuals from the religious groups, business community, NGOs, VWOs and like-minded Singaporeans and residents who participated in the six focus-group dialogue sessions. Thank you for your passion, support and ideas, without which this Bill would not have been possible.
Madam, this Bill seeks to dismantle human trafficking syndicates and protect people who have been trafficked. It plants a flag on Singapore – a flag that signifies that we will not stand for trafficking of people on or through our shores.
In closing, I would like to share with colleagues in this House two stories of two different ladies whom I met during my visit to the shelter for trafficked women.
Page: 83
The first is a story of a lady who was working as a chef in a country in the region. She was offered a job to work as a chef in Singapore. She considered her options carefully and found that the potential earnings that she could make from taking up the offer far exceeded what she was then earning in her home country. So, she left her child behind and came to Singapore in the hope of earning more money to support her family back home.
Upon arrival in Singapore, she was told that she was in debt to the man who had arranged her entry into Singapore and that she would have to work as a prostitute and sexually service as many men as would be necessary for her to repay her debt. She refused to work the first day, she refused to work the second day and was adamant that she would not become a sex worker, and good for her. She said she was physically beaten up on the third day as a sex worker to pay back what she owed. Soon after, she found an opportunity to escape and sought help. She is currently residing safely in a shelter and away from her environment of harm.
The second story is one of a lady who was destitute and was told she could earn a sizeable amount of money by coming to Singapore. In her desperation to earn money to support her family, she agreed to the offer and left her home town. Upon her arrival, she was similarly told to prostitute herself to make a living and to repay her debt. She was told to work on a daily basis from 9.00 am to midnight – and all of us in this House can agree that this is extremely exploitative by any measure. After three days, while her captors were distracted, she saw an opportunity to escape and she took it. She is now recovering safely in a shelter and receiving counselling support.
These two stories encapsulate what this Bill is all about – whether it is sexual exploitation, labour trafficking or organ trafficking, this Bill seeks to protect the most vulnerable of the vulnerable – the innocent who often do not have a voice and who are caught in a merciless web of exploitation. The intention is that this Bill will dismantle syndicates and prevent the exploitation of innocent women, men, girls and boys.
I firmly believe that, one day, perhaps soon, societies will be measured by how they care for and protect their most vulnerable. If this Bill can help save one life, then it would be all worthwhile. It is our hope, of course, that it will save many more lives than just one. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.
*Question proposed.*
Page: 84
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Seah Kian Peng) in the Chair]
Mr Deputy Speaker, the anti-slavery activist William Wilberforce once said that, "You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know."
Today, we look back at the dark history of slavery all across the world and we continue to say, no more, no more to enslavement, no more to the demeaning of another. Proudly, we point to the history of the emancipation of the slaves and say we have changed the world. Yet, perhaps by glorifying the end of old slavery, we may have sadly ignored the reality that slavery has evolved and is still as insidious and abhorrent as before.
Even in this city we call home, this clean, safe, secure country that takes pride in our laws, efficient judiciary and safe streets, we are similarly unable to avoid the scourge of modern slavery in the form of human trafficking. Whether it is trafficking of persons into sexual slavery or labour abuses, whether it happens on home soil or existing as a transit point, we need to admit that the problem does exist in Singapore and we have to solve it.
It is easy to gloss over the problem and just focus on our economic growth, our standard of living. But just as we can choose to look the other way, it certainly does not stop the problem from staring right back at us.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this historic Bill. I congratulate the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza on his passion and drive in pushing this Bill to fruition. I support its noble intentions to punish the perpetrators of depraved and heinous crimes of trafficking of the innocent. And I look forward to Singapore playing a bigger role in ending the possession of persons as mere commodities, to be traded and denied their basic rights.
But I also hope to see the Bill humanised. By a cursory look of the Bill itself, it is perhaps understandable – and Mr de Souza had alluded to this – why it stands accused in certain quarters of being thick on punitive measures but thin on victim protection. An activist pointed out to me that there are 11 clauses under Part 3 in relation to enforcement and, yet, only two clauses under Part 4 of the Bill for victim protection and assistance. Let me state clearly that the punitive stance of this Bill is not a bad thing. I welcome any action to punish and put a stop to anyone perpetrating trafficking. But I also hope for more focus on the rights and protection of victims.
We cannot rely on the silenced to tell us of their suffering, I, therefore, beg the indulgence of everyone in this House to allow me, for the moment, to lend my voice to the
Page: 85
voiceless, as Mr de Souza has also pointed out. This is, after all, a Bill of the voiceless.
I met Mya, a 21-year-old girl who came from Mong La in Myanmar. This was in 2009. Despite her youth, she already had the weight of the world on her shoulders and she looked as if she was already in her 40s. She was born blind and was sold by her aunt to traffickers at the age of four. Hers is perhaps a heart-wrenching story like no other. She was held captive in a brothel far away in a neighbouring country, she serviced up to 15 clients a day from age six. By the time she was rescued, she was 16 and her first instinct was to try to run back to the brothel and the captors she was rescued from because it was the only reality that she knew of, the only "home" she was aware of. By then, she, unfortunately, had contracted AIDS and she passed away two months after I interviewed her.
Closer to home, there are stories as well and these are some that volunteers who are out doing the difficult task of outreach on the streets have shared with me.
One lady, J, was an attractive young lady with a good singing voice. She packed her bags, ready to leave home for an exciting stint as an entertainer in Singapore. She had a six-month visa and the promise of good pay. With this, she should be able to provide a better future for herself and her disabled son back home. Yet, on arrival, she discovered that she was not going to be an entertainer of the usual sort. On her arrival, her employers stripped her and confined her to a cold room, forcing her to agree to prostitute herself. Fortunately, she was rescued. Yet, she was to be dealt a bad deck of cards as, during her medical checks, she was discovered to have cancer and did not have much time left.
She was told that she may have to stay for up to two years to assist with investigations but, after a long struggle of a year, she decided that she would have to forfeit her right to justice and compensation so she could return home and spend her remaining time with her son. She, too, passed away soon after she returned.
There are also two young cousins, one under-aged, and they would probably have an experience that would horrify anyone. On arrival in Singapore, they were raped to break them mentally into accepting that sexual relations with strangers were "normal". I was told of another Bangladeshi sex worker who, in this case, came willingly to work on the promise of $1,000 a month for two months of work, a sizeable income for her to bring home. She was told she only had to service five clients a day. Yet again, as fate would have it, she did not realise that the $1,000 did not include deductions for meals, lodgings, transport. And she was coerced into doing more than she was comfortable with. The five men became 10 on weekdays and up to 45 on weekends, starting from 2.00 pm in the afternoon to 6.00 am in the morning. She aged dramatically in those two months.
Page: 86
Another case from the Police files: a male PRC trafficker and 26 male customers were arrested and charged. The victim, a 17-year-old PRC girl had come under-aged and had been forced into prostitution. Investigators revealed that the victim was tricked into meeting the trafficker in Zhuhai, China, on the pretext that the accused would find her a good job in Macau in the service industry. She was drugged, however, and raped. Subsequently, the trafficker repeatedly asked her for sex and, if she refused, he would beat her up or threaten to do so. He then decided to bring the victim to Singapore to work as a prostitute. The victim refused and tried to escape by jumping from a fifth-floor unit. In her words, "Unfortunately, I survived." She was caught and threatened, as well as her family.
On 16 May 2013, this victim was transported to Singapore and forced to work as a prostitute. For a period of 15 days, the victim was made to service 150 clients. That is an average of 100 a day. The trafficker took all the earnings. He was charged on seven counts under the Women's Charter and the Penal Code. He was sentenced to six months in prison. Just six months. Therefore, I certainly welcome the stiffer punishments under clause 4 of the Bill, as proposed by the hon Member. Even as I relate all these cases to you, I feel this emptiness in my gut. It is something that most of us are not aware of.
While we see some of the most vivid cases in terms of trafficking of persons for sexual slavery, labour cases exists as well. Foreign domestic workers tied in servitude, construction workers, fishery industry workers, they all exist. It is perhaps comforting that the recorded numbers are not high but, if we sit back and do nothing, we will have to live with the burden that a modern society like ours has allowed such acts to persist.
We have the case last year of a foreign domestic worker locked in a luggage bag while her employers were out. We also read of cases in the region, most recently of Bangladeshi men beaten and kidnapped to work on fishing vessels, rescued in dire conditions in south Thailand. These are some, just some, of the terrible experiences of the voiceless.
I am proud to say that our Police Officers work very hard to do their level best to assist, but the cases do take time and this is perhaps an immense luxury that trafficked women and men have very little of. The enforcement powers provided under sections 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 16 give more bite to the officers. I hope, too, that the heartless and soulless traffickers like that in the Police case will be sent away for much longer because that is certainly what they deserve.
Some of the cases take place on our soil, but we are also sometimes accused of being a transit centre for trafficking of persons because of the gold standard of our immigration stamp. We hear of safe houses north of our border and south of our shores where traffickers train and condition their victims on what to say and how to behave at immigration. With the threat of harm coming to them or their families back home, we certainly need to improve
Page: 87
our work at immigration by training our officers to identify the signs of human trafficking and perhaps develop specialist teams to directly combat organised immigration crime. We should also enhance our ability to act early and help other countries to deal with the issue at source before it reaches our shores.
In speaking to volunteers on outreach in places like Geylang, Desker and Joo Chiat, many victims have an innate fear of any authority figure, especially those in uniform, perhaps because of experiences that they have had in their own countries. Even with stricter laws and protocols, they may not surface as many are coerced into saying only the right things during raids. They fear that, even if they report that they have been trafficked, they may not be believed or may be betrayed. It does not happen in Singapore, but they fear it still.
Cases, on average, take 1.5 to two years and this time is difficult as victims have families back home to provide for. They need care and support during their time here. And I applaud the various schemes that are already in place. While I agree that not every clause for victim protection needs to be codified, not doing so will run the risk of victims under-reporting crimes due to fear of prosecution themselves. There is also the institutional fear that too much victim rights may compel more to cry wolf and seek protection. However, this is a burden that needs to fall on the authorities to establish the facts.
I propose that a section for statutory defence to a criminal charge be included under Part 4 of the Bill. This may not be done now but it is something for us to think about over the long term. This should apply where a trafficked victim has committed an illegal act as a direct consequence of being exploited or trafficked, so that no prosecution, conviction or imposition of penalties should occur if the victim was compelled to commit the act or if the victim was a minor at the time of the illegal act. This serves to protect victims who fear that escaping from their traffickers could lead to their own prosecution as well.
Ultimately, this will allow victims to raise it as their defence to a charge that they committed as a direct consequence of their trafficking. The burden of proving the illegal act would otherwise lie upon the prosecuting authorities.
The UK Department of Justice lists the following as part of their working arrangements for victim welfare: (a) safe accommodation; (b) one-to-one support with support workers; (c) help with living, travel costs; (d) help with access to healthcare; (e) signposting to immigration advice; (f) independent legal advice; (g) help to access counselling or other services; and finally (h) interpreter and translation services.
While not all will be applicable or suitable to our local context, it is perhaps useful for us to ponder that there are areas for us to expand on for victim support. And there are
Page: 88
already two listed in the Bill. One area of particular concern for me is accommodation. There have been discussions on the setting up of a formal shelter for some time. The current shelter run by a group of religious sisters has perhaps, at best, a maximum capacity of 20 beds. If cases do pick up because of the introduction of this Bill, I fear that safe accommodation will be sorely lacking for victims. Safe, dedicated accommodation. I, therefore, also urge that, apart from the Bill, the Ministries overseeing the care of victims consider a formal shelter under the authorities to give greater formal support to shelters run by VWOs so that victims not only have a safe place to stay, but one with the right environment and support as well.
Mr Deputy Speaker, by some estimates, human trafficking is worth more than $36 billion a year, making it the second most lucrative international organised criminal activity. And that money also goes on to feed other transnational crimes, such as drugs and even terrorism. This Bill takes a historic principled stand to enshrine in law, for the first time, measures to specifically combat the scourge of human trafficking. Whatever criticisms it may come under in its current form, I applaud it for the major leap it is taking. I believe it is not the last we will see of the Bill in this House and it will serve as a solid foundation for future amendments to build on. I, therefore, give my full support and will continue to push for greater emphasis on victim rights. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Private Member’s Bill on the Prevention of Human Trafficking. Human trafficking is a serious transnational crime that takes advantage of vulnerable people for purposes of sex, labour or organ sales. Being a reputed and vibrant hub for people movements and commercial activities, Singapore is both attractive and susceptible to human trafficking.
Moreover, with some neighbouring countries sliding to Tier 3, according to the US government’s latest Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report 2014, there is a risk that more human trafficking cases could be coming to our doorstep and we need to ensure that Singapore does not become a destination or transit point facilitating such heinous crimes.
Hence, it is both timely and critical that Singapore put in place a single, definitive legal framework, coupled with effective enforcement, to combat human trafficking. And I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my appreciation of the initiative and great effort put in by hon Members Mr Christopher de Souza and Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar as well as the various Ministries, including MHA, MSF, MOM and MOH.
The Prevention of Human Trafficking Bill has clearly set out the legal framework to tackle the issue, enforcement powers that agencies will have and protection measures for
Page: 89
victims. I am satisfied with the comprehensive scope of the Bill, though I have a clarification to seek.
The Bill explicitly sets out temporary shelters and counselling services for the victims. These are no doubt essential to the victims, given the likely trauma they would have had to endure prior to being rescued. However, as Singapore attempts to align closer with international standards, the protection and support provided appear to be rather basic compared with the UN TIP Protocol, in which victims may receive various assistance, including employment, educational and training opportunities. TIP victims are, by definition, vulnerable and deserve adequate protection, care and support. I am, however, also cognisant of how illegal immigrants or foreign workers may be tempted to take advantage of the Bill to try to legalise residence or employment through false claims, if the victim protection becomes too comprehensive and appealing.
Notwithstanding the clarifications I have sought, I do believe that the Prevention of Human Trafficking Bill is timely and critical in providing a single and definitive legal framework to combat TIP crimes. Hence, with that, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, human trafficking is a gross human rights violation and a moral atrocity. According to International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates, there are at least 2.4 million trafficked persons around the world at any given time, with 56% of these in the Asia Pacific region. Yet, there are only a few thousand convictions of traffickers every year. Most victims are not identified and, consequently, never receive justice for the damage and hurt inflicted on them. Disturbingly, human trafficking remains a low-risk enterprise with high returns for traffickers. The ILO estimates that profits generated from human trafficking are as high as US$32 billion every year.
The United Nations (UN) points out that every country in the world is affected by human trafficking, whether as a country of origin, transit or destination for victims. The US State Department said in its 2014 Trafficking in Persons Report that Singapore is a destination country for women and girls from China, India and parts of Southeast Asia who are victims of sex trafficking and a transit country for Cambodian and Filipino men subjected to forced labour on fishing vessels that stop at Singapore ports.
Page: 90
The report stated that many foreign workers here have assumed large debts to recruitment agencies in both Singapore and their home countries, making them vulnerable to forced labour, including debt bondage. The report further said that some foreign workers reported confiscation of their passports, restrictions on their movement, illegal withholding of their pay, threats of forced repatriation without pay, and physical and sexual abuse, which are all potential indicators of trafficking. The Government has responded to this report, saying that it remains of the view that the US needs to adopt a more objective methodology in future reports.
Last year, there were 53 reported cases of sex trafficking and 49 reported cases of labour trafficking in Singapore. Of these, only seven have been prosecuted, while investigations for most of the other cases are on-going.
Human trafficking is covered under the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children. The Protocol came into force in 2003. Singapore is neither a signatory nor party to this Protocol, although it has ratified the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, which is the parent Convention to this Protocol.
Singapore currently does not have a dedicated anti-trafficking law; this Bill will be the first. Currently, human trafficking is covered by several different pieces of legislation, such as the Women’s Charter and the Children and Young Persons Act.
This Bill represents progress in acknowledging the problem of human trafficking in Singapore, instead of conflating human trafficking with other crimes, such as human smuggling or illegal migration, as used to be the case. It also makes an attempt to move beyond the perception that the bulk of human trafficking offences are related to sex trafficking and sexual exploitation and acknowledges that labour trafficking is also a problem.
The main focus of this Bill is to criminalise trafficking by imposing penalties and stepping up enforcement efforts to weed out traffickers. There are also some provisions for victim protection and assistance.
The Inter-Agency Taskforce on Trafficking in Persons was set up in 2010 and is co-chaired by MHA and MOM. The Taskforce came up with the National Plan of Action in 2011 which aims to combat human trafficking through the "4Ps" framework of prevention, prosecution, protection and partnership.
In this Bill, of the 4Ps, prevention and prosecution feature strongly; protection of trafficked victims is provided for but is lacking in some areas; while partnership is largely
Page: 91
absent. My speech will focus on the victim protection and assistance measures in the Bill.
The Bill has some provisions for protection and assistance to victims. Clause 18 protects victims of sexual exploitation by providing for in-camera Court proceedings and a publication gag order to prevent the identification of victims. Clause 19 empowers the Director of Social Welfare to provide victims with assistance, including temporary shelter and counselling services, as he or she considers "practicable and necessary" in the circumstances of the case. However, these are provided administratively at the discretion of the Director.
Sir, the provisions for victim protection and assistance in the Bill need to be strengthened further. There are two key reasons why this is necessary.
First, it is the right thing to do for victims of human trafficking. Many victims would have suffered horribly in the hands of their traffickers and may be in a state of shock, misery and disorientation in a foreign land. As a developed country, Singapore should do all it can to lessen their physical, mental, emotional and financial burdens while they assist in investigations and await the trial of their victimisers.
Second, strengthening the protection and assistance framework would encourage more trafficked victims to come forward to report their plight to the authorities. As human trafficking is a clandestine activity, there is often no paper trail and the prosecution relies heavily on the cooperation of victims to report and testify against suspects. In the absence of a strong victim protection and assistance framework, trafficked victims may decide that they are better off suffering in silence or may be reluctant to cooperate fully with the authorities. This will make it harder for the authorities to hunt down the traffickers and for the prosecutors to secure convictions. Traffickers will then be able to brazenly continue their evil deeds and harm even more innocent victims.
There are several ways the victim assistance and protection framework can be improved.
First, in addition to shelter and counselling, clause 19(1) should also mention that victims should be provided with food and healthcare.
Second, victims should be allowed to work during the time their case is on-going. Most foreign workers, who leave their home countries and come to Singapore, do so to seek better work opportunities. The fear of not being able to carry on working while they undergo a lengthy Court case, which may last up to three years, could discourage victims from coming forward, as most have families back home relying on their remittances and many would have incurred hefty debts to come to Singapore. While temporary employment is currently
Page: 92
permitted where merited, this is done on a case-by-case basis. There is no public mention of the criteria and merits used to determine this. This may result in a degree of uncertainty for victims who are deciding whether or not to report trafficking.
Third, genuine victims should be assisted to safely return to their home country without unreasonable delay after the conclusion of the trial. One of the initiatives proposed in the 2011 National Plan of Action (NPA) by the Inter-Agency Taskforce was to "facilitate the re-entry and return of victims to their home countries" after conducting a review of provisions to allow this. This review was due to be completed in 2013, but this provision is nowhere to be found in the Bill. May I ask if the review has been completed and what its conclusions are?
Fourth, victims should also be given access to legal aid and representation. They should be provided with information on the criminal and administrative proceedings related to their cases, including advice on pursuing civil action against their traffickers to obtain compensation.
Fifth, the Courts should study if it is possible to allow victims of human trafficking to attach civil claims to the criminal case, as many will not have the means to take out separate civil lawsuits. As brought up by Ms Sylvia Lim in this House earlier this year, traditional criminal proceedings are aimed at punishing the offender, while the victim usually receives no compensation for injuries or losses from the crime. I would like to suggest that Singapore could consider a scheme practised in the Netherlands, which allows trafficking victims to attach a civil claim to a criminal case, so that the criminal Court can decide on claims at the sentencing stage.
Sixth, with respect to victim protection, the Bill should clarify that trafficking victims will not be prosecuted for offences committed by them, if such offences are a direct consequence of their situation as trafficked persons. Without an assurance that they will not suffer repercussions for speaking out, many may opt not to report their abuse.
Some may argue that providing strong victim assistance and protection could incentivise false reporting. I think this fear is overstated. As a matter of principle, we should not compromise the interests of the vast majority of genuine victims in our attempt to prevent a small minority of false reporters.
A clear definition and guideline on what constitutes trafficking will help prosecutors and investigators correctly classify trafficking cases based on their circumstances. Genuine trafficking victims should be spared from prosecution. To provide the necessary deterrence, those who engage in wilful false reporting should be prosecuted. This is already provided for
Page: 93
under clause 20 of this Bill.
Apart from victim assistance and protection, I have several more suggestions on how the Bill and its subsequent implementation could be enhanced to better meet its objectives. First, after this law is enacted, there needs to be sufficient public education provided to foreign workers, employers and members of the public who may come into contact with trafficked victims. This is so that they will all be more aware of their rights and responsibilities under this law and report violations when they occur.
Second, the penalties for human trafficking under clause 4 of this Bill should be enhanced further, given the terrible nature of the crime and the fact that human traffickers often make a tidy profit off their victims. Clause 4 specifies a penalty of up to 10 years' imprisonment, a $100,000 fine and caning for the first offence. In comparison, under Proposition 35 which was passed in the state of California in the US to enhance penalties for human trafficking, the maximum fine is US$1.5 million and prison sentences of 15 years to life.
Third, the Government should reveal how it plans to measure the success of anti-trafficking efforts following the passing of this Bill. The Government should conduct benchmarking studies every few years to measure the scale of the problem and how effectively we are rooting out trafficking. The methods, data and findings should be made available to the public.
Lastly, the fourth "P" in the anti-trafficking framework – partnership – is not mentioned at all in this Bill. Partnership with civil society and cross-border cooperation are a key tenet of a broader anti-trafficking strategy. Human trafficking is a problem that has to be tackled simultaneously on different fronts. There has to be effective collaboration between different organisations and governments for this to succeed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is a step forward in tackling the serious and extensive problem of human trafficking in the world. However, in order for the Bill to achieve its intended objective, the 4-P framework of prevention, protection, prosecution and partnership needs to work hand-in-hand. We cannot over-rely on prevention and prosecution. Greater protection and assistance to victims of human trafficking are both a moral obligation and a practical imperative to securing more convictions.
The key success indicator of this legislation is if it enables the authorities to identify more victims, to prosecute and convict more culprits of human trafficking and lower the incidence of this heinous crime. Once this Bill is passed, I urge the Government to expeditiously sign and ratify the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in
Page: 94
Persons, Especially Women and Children. Sir, I support the Bill.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on this Prevention of Human Trafficking Bill tabled by the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza. I support this Bill, which is needed and timely.
It is needed and timely because of many on-going cases of individuals – more often than not, women and children – who have been victims of human trafficking and where the perpetrators are not just mere opportunistic individuals but syndicates operating across borders globally.
Even in Singapore where our current laws have been judicious and just in ensuring human trafficking does not get out of hand, a dedicated set of laws, such as the one we are debating on today, is still needed.
For instance, we have read about young women from several countries in the region who have given accounts of how they were tricked into prostitution through promises of good jobs and what they initially thought were a way out of poverty for their families back home. The hon Members Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Alex Yam have shared a few of such unfortunate situations.
They were taken advantage of and forced into the flesh trade either in Singapore or elsewhere. With what we have within our ability and legal system, we must intervene and help them once this happens within our borders.
While I support the Bill we are debating on today, there are three areas in which I wish to propose some refinements.
First, I am quite contented with the punishment proposed for trafficking in persons as stated in clause 4 of the Bill. Although clause 4(2)(c) does indicate that the appropriate sentence will be determined should the trafficked victim be a child, I wish to propose that a harsher sentence be meted out in this case.
Where the trafficked victim is a child, as defined in this Bill, the sentence ought to be harsher than that proposed in clause 4. A child who is trafficked is much more vulnerable and likely to have trusted a significant adult in their life, only to have that trust betrayed and they end up as a trafficked victim. The perpetrator, once caught, must be dealt with much
Page: 95
more severely for taking advantage of the trust and innocence of a child.
As adults, we have a responsibility to protect and love our children – regardless of whether they are our own biological children or otherwise. If a child learns little but betrayal, distrust, exploitation, fear and anger from the adults around them, those adults ought to be dealt with as severely as possible.
Second, under clause 19(1)(a), it is stated that temporary shelter will be provided. Like the hon Member Mr Alex Yam, I hope that more shelters can be set up to help trafficked persons who are rescued, preferably shelters that are established and funded by the Government.
Third, I agree that necessary and sufficient assistance ought to be rendered to trafficked victims, in particular, if they are children, as stated in clause 19 of this Bill. However, for clause 19(2)(a), I would like to propose that the Director of Social Welfare not just appoint any public officer to render assistance to a trafficked victim.
Rather, if the trafficked victims are children as defined in this Bill, may I suggest that only public officers who have had sufficient experience working and interacting with children below 18 years of age – such as school teacher-counsellors; children, youth and family social workers; or certified child or school psychologists or counsellors – be appointed.
These specially-qualified and experienced public officers would be in a better position to engage with and counsel trafficked child victims and ought not be in uniform, so as to better provide assurance to the young trafficked victims that they have nothing to fear, especially if they have to give testimonies for Court proceedings.
Other than these three areas in which I hope the proposed refinements can be considered, I am contented that the Bill has been carefully discussed, considered and crafted. Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of this Prevention of Human Trafficking Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon Member for Holland-Bukit Timah Mr Christopher de Souza and his team for introducing the Prevention of Human Trafficking Bill in Parliament. This is a long overdue legislation which NGOs and activists have been advocating for many years. The existing legislation, such as the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, Employment Act, Penal Code and Women's Charter, are inadequate to tackle trafficking in persons. Therefore, it is commendable that it is finally acknowledged that human trafficking is a serious crime
Page: 96
which needs to be tackled through a standalone legislation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in my preparation for this speech, I had the opportunity to meet NGO representatives who have expressed reservations about the scope of this Bill. They are concerned particularly that the Bill does not provide adequate protection to victims. NGOs, such as the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME), which run shelters, help desks and legal aid for trafficked victims are concerned that not enough social support is provided to them. In their experience, they have housed victims who are required to assist in investigations for long periods of time: sometimes for up to two years or more. Some of these victims are not allowed to work, they suffer from mental illnesses, such as depression and anxiety, and have no means of income to support their families back home.
The NGOs involved here have made the following demands in a petition which they have submitted to Member of Parliament Mr Christopher de Souza sometime this year.
Mr Deputy Speaker, under clause 19 of the Bill, Assistance to Trafficked Victims, I note that the right to accommodation and counselling is guaranteed in the new Bill but can the Member clarify if this will apply to all victims and not just those who are victims of sex trafficking? The forms of assistance provided under clause 19(1), too, are inadequate. In some cases, the provisions raise more questions than answers: the clause stipulating the provision of temporary shelter, for instance, is not specific. How long will each shelter be provided for? Will it be safe? There is no mention of whether the trafficked victim placed in a temporary shelter would have freedom of movement. Will the counselling provided be undertaken on a confidential basis? This section of the Bill makes no mention of legal aid, medical treatment, compensation and social support. I would like to propose amendments to include all these under clause 19 of the Bill.
It is also important that migrants who have been trafficked not be prosecuted for being an undocumented immigrant, for working illegally or violating work pass regulations. This is because those who are trafficked may have been deceived or coerced into committing such offences. What safeguards are there to ensure that victims will not be unjustifiably punished, especially when these provisions are not guaranteed in law?
Employment is also an important issue for victims who are assisting in investigations. Many migrant workers come to Singapore because they want a better life for their families. If they are stuck in Singapore without any opportunity to work, how would they be able to support their families back in their home countries? I note that MOM imposes strict restrictions on nationality for work permit holders. For instance, Vietnam is not an approved source country. Would trafficked victims from Vietnam be allowed to work? The current system, as it stands, unfairly discriminates against victims from countries that are not "approved source countries". It also undermines the effectiveness of any anti-trafficking laws,
Page: 97
as victims are hesitant to report their cases as an investigation will effectively trap them in Singapore with no livelihood.
Victims of trafficking should be entitled to legal aid, in the form of access to legal information and legal representation. In Singapore, victims are not provided with legal aid for the pursuit of civil claims against their traffickers. They are also not provided with protection and advice in order to enable them to participate voluntarily in investigations and prosecutions.
According to Anti-Slavery International, in cases where the trafficked person had legal representation and their rights protected, predominantly will lead to a more successful conviction. Lawyers are crucial in ensuring victims of trafficking are given accurate information about Court proceedings, their role as a witness and are recognised as a victim of crime. It is crucial to ensure victims have access to legal redress and compensation within established channels under Singapore law.
Victims of trafficking should be offered payment or reparation for injury, loss or harm. Such reparation helps to empower the victim, contributes to their recovery and reduces the risk of re-trafficking. At the same time, it serves as punishment and deterrence for traffickers. Reparation should include restitution from the offender in the criminal Court, aid from state-administered victim compensation funds and damage ordered to be paid in civil or administrative proceedings.
Several key concepts in this Bill are not defined. For example, there is no definition of forced labour or deception in Part 1 of the Bill, although they are central to a thorough understanding of trafficking in persons. The definition of coercion also does not include a psychological element because psychological coercion in the form of threats and criminal intimidation has been reported by victims of human trafficking. There is also no definition of deception in the law, which is a very common indicator of trafficking in persons. The most common forms of deception encountered by the NGOs are deception of the nature of work and deception of the conditions of work. For example, a domestic worker may be told that she is in Singapore to do household chores but ends up working in a business. A migrant worker may also be promised high salaries and favourable working conditions but ends up working excessive days and hours for no or little pay. Would the new Bill consider such situations as deception?
Forced labour is also not defined in the Bill. The International Labour Organization (ILO) defines forced labour as "all work or service that is exacted from any person under the threat of any penalty and for which the person concerned has not offered him or herself
Page: 98
voluntarily".
Threats of penalty are defined as stipulated by the ILO, should be defined but not limited to the following: (a) physical violence against worker, family or close associates; (b) sexual violence; (c) imprisonment or other forms of physical confinement; (d) financial penalties; (e) denunciation to authorities; (f) dismissal from work or exclusion from future employment; (g) exclusion from community and social life; (h) removal of rights or privileges; (i) deprivation of food, shelter or other necessities; and (j) shift to even worse working conditions.
It is important to note that Singapore has ratified Forced Labour Convention in June this year and voted in favour of a supplementary protocol to this Convention. In light of this, can the Member of Parliament clarify if the definition of "forced labour" used by the ILO will be the working definition of the Bill? If it is, why is it not defined there?
According to this Bill, Police and non-Police enforcement officers are able to arrest and forcibly gain entry into premises without a warrant, and are to be armed with batons and accoutrements "as are necessary". It is important to note that of the 19-page long Bill, six full pages are dedicated to a section on Enforcement while only two pages are dedicated to Victim Protection and Assistance. In percentage terms. the Enforcement section takes up 30% of the Bill, while the Victim Protection and Assistance section takes up only 10% of the Bill.
This disparity is something that we should be particularly concerned about. Project X, an NGO that works with sex workers, has witnessed many of such raids and they are often violent and invasive in nature. If these powers were to be exercised to their fullest extent, such raids and arrests may result in the secondary traumatisation of vulnerable victims of trafficking. What measures are being taken to ensure that this does not happen? As raids are often violent in nature, is this even possible? Why are these provisions on enforcement necessary? Are the current provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code not sufficient?
A period which would allow victims the time to "recover and reflect" prior to deciding whether or not to press charges against their trafficker is important for the protection of the human rights of trafficked persons. According to human trafficking experts and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), "If a victim is put under pressure to press charges immediately, the risk increases that he or she will withdraw the statement at a later stage." Therefore, designating a recovery and reflection period is in the interest of both the victim and the authorities. Is there a reason why this is not included in the Bill?
One of the ways in which traffickers intimidate victims is by threatening their families back home. What provisions are there to ensure that the Singapore Government works with
Page: 99
officials and NGOs of sending countries to deal with this issue? Trafficking is a transnational crime which requires regional and international cooperation. What kinds of cooperation will be taken by the Singapore Government to ensure that trafficked victims who return to their countries of origin are successfully reintegrated and do not risk being trafficked again?
The importance of a victim-centric approach. Successful prosecution of traffickers will depend significantly on victim cooperation. This can only be achieved when victims feel supported through the investigation and prosecution processes. Legislation is necessary to ensure that the system of victim protection and entitlement is transparent, accessible and consistently and effectively implemented. A legislated framework will assist those working with victims of trafficking to give accurate and consistent advice. The alternative approach of developing "guidelines" and assessing victim entitlements on a case-by-case basis leads to inconsistency, a lack of transparency, potential discrimination and a situation in which victims are required to prove if they are "deserving" of certain protections.
Rather than relying on the criminal justice system to identify victims, HOME recommends the adoption of a victim-centred verification process. Frontline officers will make an initial determination that there are "reasonable grounds" for suspecting that a particular individual is a victim of trafficking. A suspected victim’s immediate needs must be addressed at this point, for example, by the provision of shelter and counselling.
Following this, a process of further investigation should be implemented to determine within a specified timeframe – 30 days is recommended – that "on the balance of probabilities" the person is a victim of trafficking. Entitlements, such as a right to work and to legal aid, would then follow this conclusive determination. Extensive guidelines on a victim-centric approach to identifying trafficked victims exist and are enforced by many countries around the world, including member countries of the EU, Australia, UK and the United States.
The burden of proving that trafficking has occurred should not fall on the shoulders of a victim. Concerns that legislated protections and entitlements for victims of trafficking may be exploited can be addressed by the introduction of a robust victim-identification process.
Victims are the most important people in identifying human traffickers, their customers and the larger criminal networks that operate behind them. These criminal actors depend upon weak or under-enforced victim protections to conduct their businesses. This is why very few mid- to high-level actors in trafficking rings are ever apprehended and why human trafficking remains a low-risk, high-reward activity. Additionally, international criminal organisations are often involved in not only human trafficking, but also other crimes, such
Page: 100
as drugs and weapons smuggling.
Implementing a victim-centred approach to human trafficking increases the chance of identifying higher level actors and severing an income stream that can fuel additional trafficking and other crimes that threaten the security of Singapore.
NGOs, such as HOME, have found that potential victims of trafficking are hesitant to report their cases because they see very little benefit from doing so. While reporting is crucial for the Bill to have the punitive and deterrent impact that is intended, victims gain little from it.
Singaporeans should have the moral courage and obligation to report when they suspect a case of human trafficking. I hope that this House will move towards a more victim-centred approach and for future amendments to be made to this Bill to curb human trafficking. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this timely Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore is vulnerable to human trafficking as a destination country due to our economic growth and strategic location within Asia. The migrant worker environment has been calling out for dedicated Trafficking-in-Person legislation for a while now. The Labour Movement, through the work done by the Migrant Workers' Centre (MWC) has been assisting migrant workers in more than 12,000 cases relating to employment malpractices, with more than a handful of these cases possibly falling under the ambit of the proposed Act.
The legislation must be carefully targeted. Otherwise, it would distract us from targeting real trafficking through a misdirected emphasis on every case where some elements of trafficking might be fulfilled, but where the complete offence is much more difficult to establish.
There are some concerns expressed that the Bill in its current form lacks clarity and is too restrictive in its determination of a real trafficking case. One of the scenarios that critics offer in the argument is the debt-burden situation but, unfortunately, it is not often a straightforward case to be classified as human trafficking.
For example, a migrant worker pays a large agency fee to come here as a result of having been cheated by their own nationals but, once arrived, is put to work with an employer who is responsible for his welfare, provides favourable working conditions and pays him fairly and on time. I am told that this situation befalls a great number of migrant workers coming to
Page: 101
Singapore. As such, a too liberal or wide interpretation of what qualifies as trafficking may work against these workers as it might jeopardise the workers’ ability to stay on and work if they are considered as TIP.
Not surprisingly, our authorities prefer a more realistic assessment, where debt-burden on its own, without force or coercion, would not technically satisfy a charge of trafficking. This is for obvious reasons as almost every non-traditional source migrant worker would otherwise qualify as having been trafficked simply by virtue of having paid an agent’s fee and laboured under a debt. Hence, there are strong grounds requiring a careful assessment of the degree of vulnerability, exploitation or coercion be done before a case is classified as coming under the ambit of the Bill.
I am supportive of the Bill in its current form. It is important for us to understand and be pragmatic of the realities in the migrant worker environment in Singapore and also to take into context other pieces of legislation, such as the Women's Charter, Children and Young Persons Act, Immigration Act, Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, Employment Agencies Act and the Penal Code, all of which continue to operate in tandem with the proposed legislation. This strong framework of complementary regulations would, in my opinion, be comprehensive enough to protect any person in Singapore.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there are also very strong calls for the Bill to be more victim-centric because, in its current form, the emphasis seems to be on enforcement. These calls propose the inclusion of a "right to work" as part of the measures to support victims. Criticism of the Bill includes caution from some quarters that failing to provide this right of employment might lead to victims not coming forward for fear of being deported or repatriated.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there are also concerns that coding the right to work for suspected victims of human trafficking in the legislation may open a Pandora's box with many coming forward to make false TIP claims in the hope of finding alternative employment. For example, giving a suspected labour trafficking victim the right to employment may be very tricky, especially where the facts show that the worker was complicit in his own trafficking, as a "willing victim"; or, where the debt incurred by the victim was so small as not to warrant him staying on for an extended time to recoup the financial loss, especially where the Public Prosecutor estimates an expeditious conclusion to the case. There is also a possible scenario where a labour trafficking victim, given his skill or nationality, would not have qualified on his own merit for a work pass.
Every case will be unique and, hence, there is a need to assess each case on its own facts and merits, coupled with the exercise of discretion and empathy, as opposed to
Page: 102
preferring a "one-size-fits-all" approach.
While a blanket entitlement for all victims to work is not carried within the Bill, I understand that MOM administers a witness job scheme for prosecution witnesses which allows them to work on a temporary work permit to stay viable and productive during the investigation and prosecution process.
MOM has also been liberalising its "Change of Employer" rules in the last two years and now allows a larger number of migrant workers who would otherwise have to return home, to stay on and work with a different employer on meeting certain criteria, such as where a worker has lodged a claim or dispute with MOM and it is found to be legitimate. I would like to urge MOM to consider granting labour trafficking victims "Change of Employer" in a similar manner.
Perhaps, it would be more prudent to keep some operational levers for victim care and protection within the subsidiary processes that support the legislation rather than coding the "right-to-work" for suspected labour trafficking victims in the legislation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill will also bring much needed relief to migrant fishermen, a group that is vulnerable to labour trafficking and which the MWC has assisted in the past. The MWC has seen cases where these fishermen were duped into taking up jobs as seamen but were instead transited through Singapore and eventually placed on fishing vessels. These same workers had not only been deceived but, after arriving, had their passports taken away from them by force and were made to sign contracts which were inherently unfair to them.
These contracts stipulated that they had to work continuously for one- or two-year terms without any remuneration or compensation paid. Conditions on board the vessels were squalid and unsanitary, but as the vessels were mostly out to sea, escape was virtually impossible and, even if the trafficked person could escape, that would virtually mean he would not ever get paid for the time he had already served, in addition to never seeing his passport again – which creates obvious difficulty in returning home. The treatment and conditions faced by these young men, I am certain, would, indeed, qualify them as victims of trafficking under the Bill.
The enactment of the Bill would allow the Singapore authorities to do much more to alleviate the plight of these young men as well as investigate and prosecute their traffickers.
It is worth noting that the Migrant Workers' Centre (MWC) has been working with and assisting migrant fishermen since early 2011. In December 2013, the MWC set up a forward case reporting and welfare centre for migrant fishermen stationed at the Jurong Fishery Port,
Page: 103
which caters mainly to foreign fishing vessels and crew. The very availability of this case reporting centre seems to have served as a very strong deterrent to trafficking activity, so much so that since its set-up, no further suspected or alleged trafficking has been reported out of Jurong Fishery Port.
Mr Deputy Speaker, trafficking-in-person is a serious offence against human liberty and the enforcement and prosecution must, as our pioneer piece of legislation, reflect our society's strong condemnation for its commission. The proposed sanctions, which include corporal punishment, will encourage perpetrators to avoid detection and arrest at all cost, including using violence against law enforcement officers, as a means of escape or evasion when detected.
There is some concern that the granting of additional powers to enforcement officers, such as the right to bear non-lethal weapons, might encourage these officers to become more aggressive and appear more menacing when carrying out their duties. While the action may be fairly directed towards the traffickers, nevertheless, it risks adding to the intense trauma already suffered by the trafficked victim.
Again, a balance will need to be struck but, as a starting point, I believe that it is in the interest of protecting the safety and well-being of our enforcement officers, we must face the very realistic possibility that they would be threatened with physical danger in the discharge of their duties. The ability to carry non-lethal defensive aids like batons would, in my opinion, be a practical way to equip these officers for their protection. Naturally, although the Bill does not specifically provide, officers should be given detailed training on the discharge of such equipment and strict rules should be made governing the use of these non-lethal weapons.
Mr Deputy Speaker, while we mull over the proposed wordings and provisions in the Bill which seeks to detect and punish perpetrators of trafficking, it is worthwhile to note how some organisations are also supplementing the Bill's provisions on deterrence and enforcement with other efforts to prevent and suppress trafficking in persons even further up the process chain.
The MWC, whose experiences I have cited throughout my speech today, recently launched a Migrant Workers' Pre-Departure Video. MWC is now working with Government agencies to secure compulsory screening of the Pre-Departure Video at all Construction Skills Testing Centres in source countries like India, Bangladesh and China. If the MWC is successful in its efforts to make screening at these centres compulsory, then the implications for all newly arriving construction workers to Singapore would be vast – as key parts of the video are dedicated to issues like source country agents' fees, obtaining clearly documented employment terms and conditions, as well as a true portrayal of the life of migrant workers
Page: 104
in Singapore – which, while comfortable, may not be perfect. It is our hope that through the raising of awareness of typical recruitment malpractices and educating migrant workers on seeking recourse, we will empower workers to protect themselves and break the hold of rogue agents and the debt-bondage of workers.
In conclusion, I think it is widely recognised even among critics that this landmark piece of legislation will change for the better how Singapore views and deals with human trafficking. As with any new legislation, we must be prepared for imperfections and flaws when executed in real-life situations and these must be fed back at the appropriate time when amendments and updates are made. More importantly, once we have the legislation in place, what is required is for the Government, civil society and the citizenry to work together in responsible cooperation to give this legislation its intended effect and eradicate trafficking in persons in Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
This Private Member's Bill is quite significant and I congratulate Mr Christopher de Souza on seeing it through to its completion and working together with the many different partners that he has described. It is significant for that reason in itself, amongst others, that this is a partnership between the legislative body of Parliament as well as the Government Ministries and agency officers, as he has described, as well as civil society. This is not a Bill that is coming from a single quarter, but coming from across various quarters of Singapore's society. It is also an idea that has been in gestation for some time with the Inter-Agency Taskforce having been set up in 2010.
Another reason why this Bill is significant is that it speaks to aspirations beyond our pragmatism. The primary beneficiaries, in terms of individuals of this Bill, are non-Singaporeans largely or almost exclusively. So, this is not a piece of legislation that is about pragmatism or economic utility; it is about what is morally right. It speaks to our aspirations about wanting to be a better society and making the world a better place.
Our ability to debate this in this House and move on this issue, we must not forget, is founded upon our nation's peace, progress, economic position, the open nature of our economy and our prosperity. It is the same reasons that continue to make us a target and a transit point for human trafficking, as has been highlighted.
We should also not lose sight of the fact that some of this has happened in our past history. It was called "forced migration", "indentured labour" and "forced labour" and, between the mid-1800s to the early 1900s, certainly a significant number of people were trafficked, if you used the modern terminology, from India and China. Some of us, when we
Page: 105
look back into our ancestry, we have personal experience of this affront to human dignity that is human trafficking and slavery. The suffering and deprivation that these people experienced are something we would always want to prevent, as has been highlighted by several Members. So, it is appropriate to pursue this course.
I fully support the Bill and the measures proposed. I do have some questions and concerns. Several Members and Mr de Souza have highlighted the transnational nature of the crime, the fact that it involves multiple parties in multiple roles. The perpetrators that are likely to be identified in Singapore and prosecuted may be the tip of the iceberg – a single node in the web that stretches across nations and over time. Like others in the House, I wonder if the penalties described in the Bill are harsh enough.
We are known to be a very stringent jurisdiction. Examples are drugs, the recent debate on remote gambling and the intent always being that our penalty regime and our processes produce a very significant deterrent effect. This is modern-day slavery, but it is also a very lucrative criminal business. We have heard suggestions that it is $32 billion to $36 billion; I have heard one source quote up to $100 billion and that is just sex trafficking alone.
Will the described penalties be sufficient to have that deterrent effect in terms of the criminal business nature of this crime? One particular example we recently debated – the Remote Gambling Bill – has a fine of $300,000 to $500,000 proposed. In this Bill, we have $100,000 to $150,000. I would specifically call for higher penalties. I echo the calls for higher and harsher penalties that have been made by the other Members in this House.
The one thing I would point out, though, or I would like to bring up, at odds with some of the Members, is I do not believe that this is a zero-sum issue, looking at the contents of the Bill, where we can divide it into penalties versus victim protection. The best victim protection we can have over time is prevention. It is to make us as unattractive a destination for human trafficking as possible to want this criminal business to go away. So, I do not see it necessarily as the amount of the Bill that is penalties versus the amount of the Bill that is protection. The penalties are there to protect the possibility of future victims.
I have some questions about the handling of the trafficked person. Like Mr Zainal Sapari, I believe that we need to have a balance between the opportunity to have some employment versus making ourselves a more attractive destination by providing perverse incentives for people to come here or to come forward with false claims. I have a question about the possibility of false claims. Clearly, in the decision about what would be put in about victim protection, there is a concern about false claims. I would like to ask if this is a significant concern. Has it been an issue in other jurisdictions where similar legislation had been passed? Has a significant number of false claims come forward? Has there been evidence of
Page: 106
significant abuse?
I take note that our legislation cannot directly ape other jurisdictions. We have to be aware that it works in tandem with all the other pieces of legislation out there, as Mr Zainal Sapari has pointed out. So, it is appropriate that we start off with a limited set of measures in the Bill, perhaps with the consideration to go further in the future if it becomes necessary.
This position is predicated on the fact that much of the victim protection and victim handling are dealt with administratively or operationally. I agree with this. I believe it is necessary for the reasons I have stated and as others have. My question is to what extent is there oversight over this process? And, in particular, given that these are non-Singaporeans, what routes of appeal would they have should they feel aggrieved by the process or if they are not adequately or fairly treated? They would not have the normal routes of appeal available to a Singaporean. So, how might we increase their protection from the process in that way?
In closing, Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my concerns and questions, I wholly and whole-heartedly welcome this Private Member’s Bill. It speaks to our intent to rise above pragmatism and address what is morally right and it hopes to make Singapore a better place in protecting the vulnerable and deterring an abhorrent criminal act, it also hopes to make the world a better place. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Page: 107
PAPERCUTS