They want a review to distinguish between
                 intentional and unintentional harbouring of
                 illegal immigrants

                 By ELENA CHONG

                 SINGAPORE'S tough laws on harbouring illegal
                 immigrants should be changed so that the courts have
                 the discretion to impose fines instead of having to
                 impose a mandatory jail term.

                 This was the main response of the 15 lawyers
                 contacted yesterday after a church deacon, who had
                 harboured two immigration offenders unwittingly, was
                 sent to jail on Thursday.

                 In dismissing Seow Boon Wah's appeal, Chief Justice
                 Yong Pung How had said there was nothing that
                 could be done.

                 He said: "The law is so strict. I feel sorry for the
                 people who are charged and convicted."

                 The lawyers contacted yesterday said that apart from
                 abolishing the mandatory minimum of six months' jail,
                 Parliament should also look into distinguishing
                 between landlords and employers who harbour
                 immigration offenders.

                 This is because a higher responsibility should be
                 assigned to employers than landlords, who can be of
                 various ages, come from all walks of life and be of
                 varying intelligence.

                 Mr R. Palakrishnan, a lawyer of 25 years' standing,
                 also noted that for employing illegals, the prosecution
                 could reduce the charge to one under the
                 Employment of Foreign Workers Act where fines are
                 imposed.

                 For harbouring, there was no other section to deal
                 with the offender.

                 The onus, the lawyers said, was on the accused
                 landlord to show that he had made the strict checks
                 required by law before he took on a tenant who
                 turned out to be an illegal immigrant.

                 Mr S. Uthuman Ghani, noted that the illiterate,
                 housewives and old people would find it hard to
                 comply.

                 Even educated people have found it hard to do so.

                 Some interviewees also said that there should be a
                 distinction in the laws here between those who
                 harboured intentionally and those who did so
                 unintentionally.

                 Mr Edmond Pereira and Mr Subhas Anandan felt that
                 the courts should be given some flexibility and more
                 discretion. Mr Subhas said: "Until the law is amended,
                 the courts cannot do anything.

                 "It is up to the Attorney-General's Chambers -- they
                 must be the ones to exercise their discretion.

                 "If they do not, they are going to cause a lot of
                 hardship to people who really do not deserve six
                 months.

                 "When the courts are not given discretion, the DPPs
                 must use theirs."

                 Some lawyers called for more public education about
                 the harbouring laws as many people seemed not to
                 know how tough they were.

                 Mr Goh Aik Leng, suggested putting up posters to
                 warn people.

                 Mr Shashi Nathan said: "I think organisations like the
                 Immigration department, for example, can take out
                 advertisements in the press. A good example is the
                 CPF Board."

                       Adapted from The Straits Times, 8 Apr 2000.