Source: ICA.

20 men and one woman were arrested between 29 July and 2 August 2019 for immigration-related offences in a week-long enforcement operation conducted by the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) officers at various locations in Singapore.
The authority announced in the press release that the 20 men and woman, aged between 21 and 55 years old, included Bangladeshi, Nepalese, Sri Lankan and Vietnamese nationals, as well as three Singaporeans and a Singapore permanent resident.
According to ICA, the operations covered residential and commercial premises in locations such as Bedok, Bugis, Changi, Little India, Pasir Ris and Serangoon. A total of 21 people have been arrested for immigration-related offences such as overstaying and employment of immigration offenders (IOs) with some were found engaging in work related to construction as well as food and beverage industries.
Investigations are ongoing, ICA said.
Under the Immigration Act (Cap 133), the penalties for overstaying or illegal entry are a jail term of up to six months plus a minimum of three strokes of the cane, while the penalties for illegal departure is a fine of up to $2,000, a jail term of up to six months, or both.
ICA also stated that it takes a firm stance against any person who harbours immigration offenders. Those who wish to rent their premises must exercise due diligence in checking the status of their prospective foreign tenants to ensure that their status in Singapore is legal. They are required to conduct the three mandatory checks:

  • Check the tenant’s original immigration/work pass.
  • Cross-check the particulars on his/her pass against the particulars on his/her original passport.
  • Verify the validity of his/her pass by checking with the issuing authority (i.e. MOM for work passes and ICA for other immigration passes such as Student’s Pass and Long Term Visit Pass).

If any person is found guilty of recklessly (i.e. carrying out only one of the three due diligence checks) or knowingly harbouring overstayers and/or illegal immigrants, he may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not less than six months and not more than two years and a fine not exceeding S$6,000.
If any person is found guilty of negligently (i.e. carrying out only two of the three due diligence checks) harbouring overstayers and/or illegal immigrants, he may be sentenced to a fine not exceeding S$6,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

律师事务所涉嫌保护客户个资不当,遭罚款8000新元

日前,一家律师事务所Matthew Chiong Partnership,因误将顾客个资寄送出去而遭个人资料保护委员会(PDPC)罚款8000新元。 据悉,律师事务所的行政人员2017年在使用电子邮件与客户通信时,先后误寄客户个资,将客户详细资料曝光。而第三次是由的合伙人与事务所的资料保护官员通信时误将其他客户的公司资料传送出去,涉泄漏疑云。 资讯通信媒体发展管理局(IMDA)副局长杨子健表示周一接获投报,说明Matthew Chiong Partnership涉嫌违反个人资料保护法令,在局长陈杰豪的裁定下,决定对该律师事务所进行罚款。 他指出,律师事务所将客户曝光,即是对客户的资料保护不力。其个资即指个人敏感讯息如客户银行名字、客户与姐妹的身份证字号、用于借贷的银行行长好、借贷信息以及抵押品信息,都被曝光。 “根据所被曝光的资料显示,均属客户的隐私资料,一旦曝光很可能使申诉人与其姐妹的个资被不法之徒盗取。” 杨子健阐述,“既然该公司旨在提供法律相关服务,而且每天都需要处理大量的客户资料,公司与其工作人员应需谨慎保护个资。“ 虽然律师事务所反驳只是一次性的错误,但个资保护委员会却拒绝律师事务所的说法。 副局长强调,“身为律师事务所的行政人员,在同一个月内先后将含有个资信息的电子邮件传送到错误的邮箱中,而公司选择忽视错误,显示公司内对于个资保护的意识并不足,对于客户的个资缺乏保护的责任。…

Netizen files police report against ‘hardcore PAP supporter’ for allegedly issuing veiled threat to Facebook user for exposing PAP’s Ivan Lim

A netizen has filed a police report against a “hardcore” People Action…

Lawrence Wong says crowds gathered during GE potentially have consequences on COVID-19 infections; Netizens ask why hold GE amid pandemic

Many supporters of the political parties had congregated at various locations across…

国家剧场尖棱代表国旗五星? 《海峡时报》诠释遭建筑师打脸

上周,本地英文媒体《海峡时报》在脸书上载一则短片,纪念国家剧场在1963年8月8日开幕。在文字说明中,该报称该剧场标志性的五个擎天尖棱结构,代表着新加坡国旗上的五星。 然而,有关解说随即遭到新加坡科技设计大学客座助理教授赖启健反驳,指出这是很主观的诠释。 有网民就提出,有关代表国旗五星说,也被记载在国家图书馆局官方网站,此外还有剧场前的喷泉,则代表国旗上的新月。 对此,赖启健说明,两种说法都有谬误,是很主观的诠释,但是久而久之所有人都信以为真了。“不管是图书馆局还是国家文物局都错了,现在轮到《海峡时报》。” 在过去受国家博物馆之邀,讲解国内四大代表性建筑的讲座,赖启健曾指出,由本地大师王匡国操刀,国家剧场有了不起的建筑设计,其中五个擎天尖棱,它们连同舞台和边墙,支撑起剧场的横梁。(见以下短片) 赖启健也引用王匡国的著作《意外国家的生活追忆》,指出五大尖棱的建设从未用以代表国旗上的五星,至于喷泉也不属国家剧场的部分,而是后期由副总理杜进才博士推广美化计划,才在较后完成的。(见文章开端的照片,显示剧场在喷泉落成前后的景观。) 媒体仰赖官方机构,例如国家图书馆局提供的资料。然而即便掌控国家重要文史资料的机构,也会收藏与事实不符的信息。 更何况,国家剧场在我国历史上是富有代表性的建筑,其设计师对建筑的功能理应做了充足的描述,但是如果国家文史机构记载与史实不符的资讯,引起民众对历史认知出现谬误,误导历史观的情况是令人不安的。