Re Mohamed Saleem Ismail

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Kew Chai J
• Judgment Date: 14 July 1987
• Neutral Citation: [1987] SGHC 27
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 4 of 1986
• Date: 14 July 1987
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1987
• Plaintiff Counsel: Nathan Isaac and Thangavellu (Nathan Isaac & Co)
• Citation: [1987] SGHC 27
• Defendant Counsel: S Tiwari (Attorney General's Chambers)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Long term social visit or special pass denied,Special circumstances of case,Whether unconstitutional,Acquisition,Constitutional Law,Application,Appeals,art 123(2) Constitution of the Republic of Singapore,Claim of right to equal protection under art 12 of Constitution,Citizenship,art 12 Constitution of the Republic of Singapore,Whether Controller of Immigration failed to exercise discretion judicially,s 10(1) Immigration Act (Cap 133),Social visit or special pass,Immigration

Cur Adv Vult

By this originating motion the applicant, a citizen of Singapore is seeking from the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction an order of mandamus directed to the Controller of Immigration requiring him to review his decision made in the exercise of his statutory discretion in refusing the written requests of the applicant`s wife, Pattima Bibi, an Indian national and holder of Indian passport, for a long term social visit or a special pass to remain in Singapore till she is granted permanent residence.

Anticipating that he might have insurmountable difficulties in asking for a mandamus, there being no public duty on the part of the Controller of Immigration to issue a long term visit pass, learned counsel for the applicant sought, in the alternative, a declaration:

that the applicant`s wife is entitled to remain in Singapore on a social visit pass for two years in order not to deprive her of an opportunity to apply for permanent residence as a spouse of a citizen of Singapore under art 123(2) of the Constitution of Singapore.

There were initially two grounds stated in the statement filed under O 53 r 1(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 in support of the reliefs sought. First, it was alleged that the Controller of Immigration had totally failed to consider or had insufficiently considered the special circumstances. I shall return to these circumstances later in this judgment. Secondly, it was contended that the Controller of Immigration had failed to exercise his discretion judicially seeing that the applicant`s wife was neither within the prohibited class of persons nor an undesirable person under the Immigration Act (Cap 133) or the Rules and Regulations made thereunder.

In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant raised two further grounds in respect of which he prayed in aid two articles of our Constitution. In referring to art 123(2) of the Constitution which provides that `any woman who is married to a citizen of Singapore may, ... be registered as a citizen of Singapore` if she satisfies the Government of certain requirements the applicant claimed as the third ground that his wife would have achieved the criteria for citizenship but for the refusal of the Controller of Immigration which would inevitably have the effect of depriving his wife the opportunity to satisfy art 123(2) of the Constitution. Fourthly, the applicant claimed that his right to equal protection of the law under art 12 of the Constitution was infringed. The applicant asserted that by reason of the failure of the Controller of Immigration to state the criteria under which foreign wives of citizens of Singapore would be granted permanent residence he had found himself in such a state of uncertainty that he felt he was discriminated against. These submissions will be considered after I have set out briefly the facts of this case.

The applicant at all material times was a citizen of Singapore by birth and was gainfully employed as a butcher earning $900 per month all told. In July 1984 he married his wife who in September 1984 entered Singapore and was allowed to remain in Singapore on a pass issued under reg 14(3) of the Immigration Regulations 1972 renewable at the expiry of every month. The pass was renewed until October the following year when she was given a written notice on 4 October 1985 to leave Singapore by 20 October 1985. Her solicitors appealed to the Minister for Home Affairs to grant her `further extension to remain in Singapore for a period deemed appropriate under the circumstances hereinbefore stated`. Those circumstances were that the applicant`s wife was in an advanced stage of pregnancy, that the applicant for reasons of having to perform national reservist training was unable to accompany her on a flight to India and to help arrange for her stay in India and that, in any case, she could not for medical reasons undertake the air journey to India. It should be observed that there was no indication whatsoever that the applicant`s wife should be given permanent residence with a view to her acquiring Singapore citizenship. The Ministry of Home Affairs in due course replied that the applicant`s wife would `be allowed to stay...