The list in Wikipedia missed out
the following - as nobody updated the content in
Wikipedia.
Accomodations - Renting a Room ?
"1. Owners of property need to see your
employment pass, work permit or student pass before they will rent
out their rooms. The laws in Singapore are very strict with regard
to harbouring of illegal immigrants. Owners of flats, apartments or
landed houses face mandatory jail and caning for not instituting
proper checks on immigration status of foreigners renting rooms
from them. In the case of public Housing Board (HDB) flats, such
flats are confiscated. "
From extracts of the
Parliamentary Debates - Official Report of Tenth
Parliament, the concern of MPs
and NMPs were expressed on the severity of the proposed Amendments
to the Law being passed through Parliament.
Mr Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul
Ghani:
"Next, Sir, I am also concerned that the new section 57(7C) does
not state that in doing the three checks, it is sufficient. It
states that a defendant, who is charged, shall not be deemed to
have exercised due diligence, unless he has discharged the three
checks. To prove due diligence, he must prove that he has done the
three checks. But the question is: if he has done the three checks,
is that enough? It seems not so. Looking at the new section
57(1)(v), under this section, he may still be liable for the new
minor offence. This seems to place a heavy burden on potential
landlords. They are told what to do and yet, they do not know
whether what they do is enough. I would suggest that once the
defendant has proven the three checks, the burden of proof shifts
back to the prosecution to show lack of due diligence. This would
make the duty of the landlord more certain.
I have a similar view as regards the intermediate offence, where
the defendant proves two out of three checks. While I welcome the
concept of this intermediate offence, I thought that the shifting
of proof back to the prosecution mechanism would establish greater
certainty. "
Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair (Nominated Member):
"Sir, the new section 11A imposes on persons who have ceased to be
a citizen of Singapore to leave Singapore within 24 hours after he
ceases to be a citizen of Singapore. Why such a harsh timeline? The
Controller of Immigration should allow at least 14 days for the
non-citizen to organise his life and make necessary arrangements
for him to leave Singapore. These are the people who are going to
migrate and it is important that they leave Singapore with fond
memories or at least very little negative thoughts about our
nation. Any harsh treatment of these people would not assist in
them being good ambassadors of Singapore when they are
abroad.
The punishment seems to be very harsh. Why should we want to send
him to prison and, worse still, cane him for such an offence? The
modern trend in punishment is to try and avoid any form of caning
to be imposed by a court of law. Caning may be contrary to the
modern trend in human rights. Caning should not be a form of
punishment in our modern world. The sentencing system should be
less harsh and I submit that imprisonment as a form of punishment
should suffice. "
