Dr Fatimah Lateef:

          To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what will be the course of action to improve Singapore's "Tier 2" placement, alongside Thailand and Cambodia, in the US State Department’s Annual Trafficking in Persons Report 2008; and (b) whether there are proposed targets for the next 2 to 3 years.

 

 

(1) The government of the country should prohibit severe forms of trafficking in persons and punish acts of such trafficking.

 

(2) For the knowing commission of any act of sex trafficking involving force, fraud, coercion, or where the victim of sex trafficking is a child incapable of giving meaningful consent, or of trafficking which includes rape or kidnapping or which causes a death, the government of the country should prescribe punishment commensurate with that for grave crimes, such as forcible sexual assault.

 

(3) For the knowing commission of any act of a severe form of trafficking in persons, the government of the country should prescribe punishment that is sufficiently stringent to deter and that adequately reflects the heinous nature of the offence.

 

(4) The government of the country should make serious and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons.

 

           We do not share the view of the US State Department and its classification of Singapore. Our laws are tough but fair and our approach to crime has been uncompromising. This applies as much to human trafficking as it does to any other crime. In addition, we have an effective law enforcement regime with high rates of successful prosecution. Tough laws and a competent law enforcement regime have resulted in low crime rates and a high level of community safety and security.

 

          Our approach to human trafficking is not different from how we deal with crime in general. We have in place laws which criminalise the different aspects of sex trafficking, among which are the offences of forced prostitution and using false pretences to bring a woman into the country for prostitution, under Sections 140(1)(c) and 142 of the Women's Charter, and under section 373A of the Penal Code. The Children and Young Persons Act specifically prohibits trafficking in children. Indeed, Singapore takes sexual exploitation very seriously. As noted by the Report, we have extended our laws to criminalise prostitution involving a minor under the age of 18, extended extra-territorial jurisdiction over Singaporean citizens and permanent residents who purchase or solicit sexual services from minors overseas, and make organising or promoting child sex tours a criminal offence.

 

 

 

 

          Another key focus of the Report is our treatment of Foreign Domestic Workers working in Singapore. Every FDW enters Singapore voluntarily via proper channels and is issued with a work permit. They should therefore not be included in a report on human trafficking. Notwithstanding this, we have many measures in place to protect FDWs against exploitation. Prior to the issuance of the work permit, a new FDW attends a Safety Awareness Course and sits for an entry test without the presence of both her employment agent and employer. The course not only educates the FDW on safety issues and rights which safeguard her well-being, but also informs her of available avenues through which she can raise concerns and problems. FDWs are informed of a toll-free FDW helpline manned by Ministry of Manpower (MOM) officers, and given feedback forms in prepaid envelopes to surface any problems they may encounter.

 

          MOM also conducts random interviews with FDWs working for the first time in Singapore during their initial months of employment. These one-on-one interviews allow MOM to determine if the FDWs have adapted to the work environment in Singapore and serve as an additional avenue for FDWs to raise any concerns which they might have. There are therefore ample opportunities for a FDW to contact the authorities if she is forced, deceived or coerced into employment against her will before and after she starts work. 

 

          We do not agree with certain observations made in the Report on Singapore. It alleges that Singapore is a destination country for women and girls “trafficked” for the purpose of labour and commercial sexual exploitation, and alleges that women from India, Thailand, the Philippines, and the People’s Republic of China who travel to Singapore voluntarily for prostitution or work are subsequently deceived or coerced into sexual servitude.   This is a gross distortion of reality. Our investigations have revealed very few cases of forced servitude. In cases where force, coercion or deception is found, the offenders will be punished through our criminal laws. The evidence does not show that sex workers are forced or deceived to work as prostitutes in Singapore. Many indeed come here for economic reasons.

 

          The Report also states that a “significant number” of FDWs in Singapore face physical or sexual abuse. This is again a distortion of the realities on the ground. Under Singapore law, it is an offence for employers or employment agencies to withhold the FDWs’ passports against their wishes. Wrongful confinement of FDWs is also a serious offence under the Penal Code. NGOs and Embassies are also aware of the laws that have been put in place to address any complaints and are encouraged to persuade those subjected to abuse to report their abusers to the authorities for further action. 

 

          Every report of a FDW who is physically or sexually abused is taken seriously and thoroughly investigated. No effort is spared to bring the offender to justice.The number of substantiated FDW abuse cases handled by the Police fell from 157 cases in 1997 to 68 cases in 2007, in spite of an increasing FDW population. From 2001 to 2007, 28 employers, spouses or household members were jailed for FDW abuses. From 2004 to 2007, MOM successfully prosecuted a total of 13 errant employers for failing to pay wages due to their FDWs, 5 of whom were eventually jailed. Over the same period, MOM also revoked the licences of 10 employment agencies and did not renew the licences of 18 others.   Instances of FDW abuse are not widespread. The frequency of abuse should be seen in the context of the total number of FDWs in Singapore, some 180,000 as of 2007. 

 

          In terms of enforcement of laws, the Report also alleges that we have not prosecuted or convicted any trafficking offenders during the reporting period. It wrongly assumes therefore that we have not been serious about enforcing our laws against trafficking. This is a rather strange indicator to use. Drug abuse rates in cities of the same size as Singapore is very much higher. If we record fewer arrests made against drug abusers and traffickers this year, would that mean that we are not serious enough about enforcing our tough laws against drugs?

 

          From 2005 to 2007, 35, 33 and 28 cases of human trafficking respectively were reported to the Police. Upon further investigation, however, none of these cases was substantiated trafficking cases, although one case reported in Dec 2007 is currently under investigation. In Singapore, we investigate and prosecute any person who commits an offence but we cannot obviously “arrange” for prosecution numbers to go up without evidence or basis just so that we can get a better rating from the US State Department. 

 

          We are aware that some foreign workers take large loans or are made promises of high salaries by labour agents which are later not kept, but these situations mainly arise in their home countries and cannot be effectively regulated by receiving countries. Singapore therefore supports the principle of balanced responsibilities between labour-sending and receiving countries, to tackle the problems faced by migrant workers. At the same time, MOM is committed to addressing the issue within Singapore’s jurisdiction, and has rolled out a number of initiatives. For example, employers are prohibited under the Work Permit conditions from recovering employment-related expenses such as the levy and security bond from their FDWs.

 

           Singapore will continue to work closely with the Embassies of the respective labour sending countries to ensure that the interests of FDWs are protected during their stay in Singapore. Collaborative efforts include regular coordination meetings as well as the dissemination of information and collateral through the Embassy. Reports of isolated cases of abuse should not obscure the fact that the majority of foreign workers in Singapore are reasonably well-treated. In a survey conducted by the Feedback Unit in April 2006, 90% of all FDWs said that they were happy with their employment in Singapore.

 

           Turning to the protection of trafficking victims, the Report criticises the Singapore Government for not directly operating victim shelters but instead referring potential victims of trafficking to foreign embassies or shelters operated by NGOs. This criticism is misguided and shows a lack of understanding of local conditions. Social services in Singapore are delivered by Voluntary Welfare Organisations working in partnership with, and usually subsidised by, the government. This “Many Helping Hands” approach to social service delivery empowers committed individuals and dedicated agencies on the ground to provide swift and comprehensive intervention. 

 

 

          Lastly, the Report states that Singapore does not provide trafficking victims with a legal alternative to removal to countries where they may face hardship or retribution. This is again untrue. MOM generally allows foreigners who are under investigation for illegal employment to work in Singapore under MOM's Temporary Job Scheme during the period of investigation, subject to the prevailing work pass requirements. Thereafter, if the foreigner is found not to be culpable of an offence (for example, where he was deceived into believing that he was working legally), he will be allowed to continue working in Singapore if he wishes to do so provided he meets the prevailing work pass requirements. All complaints of abuse are referred to the Police. MOM and Police will then work closely with the NGOs and respective Embassies to assist these workers to ensure that their basic needs are taken care of.

 

          Any negative perception arising from our classification as a “Tier 2” country is unjustified. Singapore is committed to ensuring that we are not a destination for human traffickers. We have in place robust laws and processes to achieve this. We have a committed and competent law enforcement system.

 

            Singapore has often been criticised for being too tough in law enforcement. To be criticised instead for being too soft in the US State Department’s TIP Report is strange indeed. Our Police will of course continue to work against trafficking as they do against all crimes. They are answerable to the Singapore people who will judge how they perform. In this regard, it is fortunate that the public at least is better informed and has a better understanding of the realities on the ground and can separate fair fact from unfair conjecture.