Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) for foreigners convicted of offences in Singapore, what are the considerations taken into account in deciding which country to deport them to after they have served their sentences; and (b) how are these considerations applied to the offenders involved in the recent billion-dollar money laundering case.
The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, such foreigners can go to any country to which their passport or travel document allows them to go. This applies similarly to the convicted foreigners in the $3 billion money laundering case.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir. I have three supplementary questions for the Minister of State. First on part (a), which is a general question on Immigration and Checkpoints Authority’s (ICA’s) policy with regard to deportation of foreigners convicted in Singapore. From my past experience, it is quite normal for foreigners to be sent back to their home countries. I would like to ask the Minister of State whether ICA, indeed, has this default guideline, apart from any special circumstances, that we would deport the foreigner back to the country where the foreigner is a national. For example, if you are a Malaysian, you will be deported to Malaysia; if you are an Indonesian, likewise, and so on.
The second supplementary question is that, on this recent money laundering case, out of the seven who had been deported to Cambodia so far, at least three of them do not seem to be holding Cambodian passports. That is based on the information which I could glean publicly. That means out of the seven deported to Cambodia, three of them do not seem to be holding Cambodian passports. So, I wonder if the Ministry can explain the choice, why they were deported to Cambodia, for those who are not Cambodian nationals.
The third question, out of the 10 arrested in this recent case, five were reported to be wanted by China and they are holding Chinese passports. So, my question is, why are they not being returned to China?
Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her questions. First and foremost, to start off with, the examples that she shared about previous instances could be a case whereby the subject did not hold multiple passports. And therefore, the only country in which the subject could be deported to, was the subject’s home country. In this case, the 10 subjects hold multiple passports. As I alluded to in my main reply, the foreigners can go to any country to which their passport or travel document allows them to go.
On the second question that she had, about three of them not holding Cambodian passports, I am not aware of this situation. I would find that quite odd, because when we undertake deportation processes, we would look at whether or not they are admissible to the country of their choice. And that would include whether or not they hold a passport that allows them to enter the country.
The third and last question the Member had was why they were not deported back to China, right? As I mentioned earlier, the foreigners can go to any country which their passport or travel document allows them to go. So, for these 10 subjects, they had chosen to be deported to Cambodia or Japan, at least for these 10 subjects. [Please refer to “Clarification by Minister of State for Home Affairs“, Official Report, 2 July 2024, Vol 95, Issue 137, Correction By Written Statement section.]
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Speaker. I have three points. First is, my analysis of who held what passports are based on the publicly available reports. So, based on what I have discerned, there are three of them being deported to Cambodia who are not Cambodian national – so, Ministry can contradict me if I am wrong in what I found.
Secondly, she mentioned that the offenders chose to go to those jurisdictions – Cambodia or Japan. So, is she saying that the offenders have a right to indicate which jurisdiction they would like to be deported to? Because she used the word “chose”, so, I would like the Minister of State to clarify that.
Last of all, my understanding is that there is an extradition treaty between Cambodia and China. So, I wonder whether she can or cannot confirm whether this was one of the factors taken into account in deporting seven of these offenders to Cambodia.
Ms Sun Xueling: For the avoidance of doubt, to be clear, convicted foreigners can go to any country which their passports or travel documents allow them to go. So, for the subjects that we are discussing right now, seven convicts have been deported to Cambodia, while one convict has been deported to Japan.
Specifically, on the question on three of the subjects as to whether or not they hold Cambodian passports, I can check back with my Ministry on this point. I have shared what I understood about this matter in my earlier reply. [Please refer to “Clarification by Minister of State for Home Affairs”, Official Report, 2 July 2024, Vol 95, Issue 137, Clarification section.]
Sorry, could I get the Member to repeat her last point again, please?
Ms Sylvia Lim: There were two more points, Speaker. The second one was about the fact that the Minister of State mentioned that these offenders chose to go to Cambodia or Japan. So, my question is, do offenders have the right to choose which country they would like to be deported to? So, if I decide that I want to go very far away to Canada, can I just say that, even if I have no connection with that country? So, anyway, specifically on that case, whether they had the right to choose?
And last of all, was the question of the existence of an extradition treaty between China and Cambodia, and whether that was one of the considerations which led to the Government deporting seven of these offenders to Cambodia.
Ms Sun Xueling: I thank the Member for her questions. To answer the second question first, whether or not there was an extradition treaty between Cambodia and China was not part of the decision-making process that the Ministry undertook.
I think what is important is that where subjects hold multiple passports, there is an assessment by the Ministry, as to whether or not they are admissible to the country based on the travel documents that they have. So, I think we do not want a situation where we try to deport an individual and actually the country to which we are deporting the individual to, does not accept the individual. Therefore, I think there is an assessment: firstly, based on the passports that they hold, which are the countries they can be deported to; secondly, obviously, if they have multiple passports, we would have to, well, whether or not the term is “choose”, but we would have to decide which country that they have the greatest likelihood of being admissible to. We make that assessment and then we successfully deport them. I hope that helps address the questions.
Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim: Last clarification, again on the issue of choice. Can the offender choose where to be deported to and the Government will accede to the choice?
Ms Sun Xueling: I think you are using the term “choice” rather loosely, because the offender can indicate which country he or she would like to be deported to, but it cannot just be, “I choose and therefore I will be sent there”. There needs to be an assessment by the Ministry as to whether or not the individual can be admissible to the country based on the travel document that he or she holds. I hope that helps address the question.
Ministry of Home Affairs
2 July 2024
https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=oral-answer-3603
Office of the Leader of the Opposition 