Re Siah Mooi Guat

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: T S Sinnathuray J
• Judgment Date: 12 September 1988
• Neutral Citation: [1988] SGHC 72
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 60 of 1986
• Date: 12 September 1988
• Year: 1988
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Louis Blom-Cooper QC and Vinod Kumar Dube (Dube & Co)
• Citation: [1988] SGHC 72
• Defendant Counsel: Fong Kwok Jen and Ng Yuen (Attorney General's Chambers)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Grounds of decision not disclosed to preserve confidentiality of source of information,Judicial review,Whether violated principle of legitimate expectation,Whether in breach of rules of natural justice,Application for order of certiorari to quash decisions of minister and controller,ss 8(3)(h) & 14 Immigration Act (Cap 133),Minister of Home Affairs' declaration that applicant an undesirable immigrant,Whether decision of minister irrational,Executive discretion,Applicant declared undesirable immigrant,Principle of legitimate expectation,Whether minister's decision unreasonable,Whether rules of natural justice applicable to aliens,Cancellation of re-entry permit and employment pass,Minister rejecting appeal,Administrative Law,Unlawful presence in Singapore,Principles governing administration of immigration laws

Cur Adv Vult

This is an application by Siah Mooi Guat (the applicant) for an order of certiorari to remove into the High Court and quash:

(a) the decision of the Mister of Home Affairs made pursuant to s 8(3)(k) of the Immigration Act on 5 September 1986, declaring the applicant to be an undesirable immigrant;

(b) the declaration and cancellation made by the Controller of Immigration on 5 September 1986 whereby the Controller (i) under s 14(4) of the Immigration Act, declared the applicant`s presence in Singapore unlawful, (ii) under s 14(3) of the Immigration Act, cancelled the applicant`s re-entry permit dated 6 March 1984, and (iii) under reg 16 of the Immigration Regulations 1972, cancelled the applicant`s employment pass issued on 6 March 1984; and

(c) the decision of the Minister of Home Affairs on 16 September 1986 made under s 14(5) of the Immigration Act whereby he dismissed the applicant`s appeal against the declaration and cancellation made by the Controller.

The applicant raised ten grounds on which she sought relief in the statement filed pursuant to O 53 r 1(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970, but as her counsel, Mr Blom-Cooper QC, did not take each of them separately at the hearing, it is not necessary to set them out here. Broadly, the grounds were that the Minister for Home Affairs (the minister) and the Controller of Immigration (the Controller) had breached the rules of natural justice; that the applicant had a legitimate expectation to continue to reside in Singapore at least until the expiry of her permit; and that the minister`s decisions were so unreasonable that it was open to review by the courts under the Wednesbury principles.

The facts on which arguments were raised at the hearing are these. The applicant, a Malaysian citizen, and holder of a Malaysian passport, first came to Singapore in 1973. Her stay in Singapore was therefore subject to immigration control. In April 1974, she was granted a temporary employment pass and, on 14 June 1974, an employment pass for one year, renewable yearly, subject to the validity of her passport. On 2 September 1975, the applicant was granted an entry permit which required her continued employment with the Singapore Sports Council for a period of six years. On or about 21 October 1976, she returned her entry permit as she had resigned from the Sports Council.

The applicant subsequently gained employment with Times Publishing Bhd. Again, she applied and obtained a temporary employment pass which permitted her to remain in Singapore. On 30 November 1977, she was issued with an employment pass valid for one year. This pass was renewed from time to time until 30 November 1980.

On 19 November 1979, the applicant applied for `permanent residence`. It was explained in an affidavit for the Controller that `permanent residence` is a nomenclature referring to those persons issued with entry permits pursuant to s 10 of the Immigration Act (Cap 133) (`the Act`). Such persons are permitted to remain in Singapore without any restriction as to their period of residence, subject, however, to ss 11, 14 and 15 of the Act, the first section of which deals with the grant of re-entry permits, the second concerns cancellation and declaration regarding permits, and the third makes it unlawful to enter or remain in Singapore after cancellation or declaration. The applicant was issued an entry permit no 32188 with effect from 8 April 1980, subject to the condition that she served Times Publishing Bhd for a period of three years from the date of the issue of the permit.

On 9 March 1984, through her then solicitors, Lee & Lim, the applicant applied for a renewal of her re-entry permit which was to expire on 17 March 1984. I should explain here that a person residing in Singapore pursuant to an entry permit issued under s 10 of the Act who seeks to leave Singapore temporarily must apply for a re-entry permit under s 11 of the Act, which will allow his re-entry into Singapore. With their letter to the Controller, the solicitors sent a letter of confirmation of employment of the applicant by Times Publishing Bhd. By a letter dated 28 April 1984, the solicitors were informed that the applicant has been issued with a re-entry permit valid till 6 March 1987. She was also issued with an employment pass for a period of three years expiring on the same day, 6 March 1987.

The applicant, however, left the service of Times Publishing Bhd in May 1984. On 24 October 1984, her solicitors inquired of the Controller whether she had to notify the Immigration Department of any change of her employer. Having sought information from Times Publishing Bhd that there had been no break in service of the applicant with the company between 8 April 1980 and 8 April 1983, on 12 November 1984, the Department wrote to the applicant`s solicitors that it was not necessary for her to notify the Department of her change of employer.

By then the applicant was employed as an associate of Russell Reynolds Inc. She also owned an apartment in which she had purchased in May 1979. In September 1985, she was informed by way of a routine letter by the Professionals Information and Placement Service, a division of the Ministry of Finance, that as she had been a permanent resident of Singapore for more than five years she was eligible to apply for Singapore citizenship. On 30 January 1986, an officer in the Singapore Citizenship Registry wrote to the applicant inviting her to call at the Registry to determine her `eligibility to apply for Singapore citizenship`. The applicant, however, did not respond to this letter.

According to the applicant, nothing untoward happened to her, as regards her residence in Singapore, until 5 September 1986, when suddenly, without any prior warning, she received the following letter from the Controller:

ENT/100837/79

5 September 1986

Miss Siah Mooi Guat alias Mei Siah

31, Tomlinson Road, #11-35

Beverly Mai Singapore 1024

Dear Madam,

Your presence in Singapore has been declared unlawful and your re-entry permit and employment pass have been cancelled on the ground that you are a prohibited immigrant under para (k) of sub-s (3) of s 8 of the Immigration Act (Cap 81, 1970 Ed). A copy each of the declaration and cancellation notices are attached for your retention.

You may, if you so wish, appeal against the declaration and cancellation of your re-entry permit by petition in writing to the minister for Home Affairs, Singapore, through the Controller of Immigration, within seven days of the date of receipt of this letter.

Yours faithfully

Sgd

Lim Ek Hong

Controller of Immigration Singapore

Her then solicitors, Chu Chan Gan & Ooi, by a letter dated 11 September 1986, lodged an appeal to the minister. The letter reads as follows:

GCB/bt

11 September 1986

The Honourable the minister of Home Affairs, through the Controller of Immigration.

Dear Sir,

Re: Miss Siah Mooi Guat alias Mei Siah

We act for Ms Siah Mooi Guat.

We are instructed to refer to the letter of Controller of Immigration dated 5 September 1986 together with its enclosures.

We are instructed by our client to appeal to you on her behalf to reconsider the declaration made against our client under s 14(4) of the Immigration Act and to discover what is the reason or reasons that led to this action.

Our client has worked and lived in Singapore since 1973. She is a person of independent means and has bought her own home in Singapore.

To her knowledge, she has not been engaged in any activity, that is, inimical to the interests of Singapore. Indeed as late as September 1985, she was invited to apply for Singapore citizenship under the accelerated citizenship (AC) scheme of the government.

For many years our client was a senior executive in the Times Organization. She was largely responsible for the Group`s diversification of its publishing interests into Hong Kong, Thailand and Australia. Her capabilities were recognized by the top management of the Times Group and at a very early stage, she was given very responsible management tasks in the group. There is no doubt that she is a person of exceptional talent.

She is now about to embark on a new career by going abroad to work in a US investment bank in the field of funds management.

To be declared as an undesirable immigrant would damage her career and future. We would therefore urge you to reconsider this matter in the light of the evidence available to you regarding her status and also having regard to the fact that in any event she would be going away to work abroad. We would urge that consideration be given to her previous contribution to the corporate expertise of the Times Group and to the publishing industry of Singapore, and that having regard to such contribution, she should be spared the stigma of an undesirable immigrant.

We also enclose our client`s two re-entry permits and green disembarkation card.

Yours faithfully

Sgd

Within a week, the applicant`s solicitors were informed by letter that the minister had rejected the appeal. That letter reads as follows:

MHA (ID) 1/9/06

16 September 1986

M/s Chu Chan Gan & Ooi Advocates & Solicitors

93 Market Street

CYS Building #09-00

Singapore 0104

Dear Sirs

Appeal Against Declaration Under Section 14(4) of The Immigration Act 1970

Miss Siah Mooi Guat alias Mei Siah

I refer to your letter to the Minister for Home Affairs through the Controller of Immigration on 11 September 86. 2 The Mister has considered your appeal and decided that the decision should stand. Miss Siah Mooi Guat is required to leave Singapore on or by 22 September 86.

Yours faithfully

Sgd

Koh Geok Eng (Miss)

for Permanent Secretary

(Home Affairs)

For the purpose of...