Bao Haiyan v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of MOM's Decision to Cancel 'S Class' Work Pass

Bao Haiyan, a citizen of China, sought judicial review in the High Court of Singapore to quash the Ministry of Manpower's decision to cancel her 'S Class' work pass. Tan Lee Meng J dismissed the application, finding that Bao Haiyan failed to establish a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion that the decision was irrational. The court determined that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support her claim that the cancellation of her S Pass was without basis.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Judicial Review

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Judicial review sought by Bao Haiyan to quash MOM's decision to cancel her S Pass. The application was dismissed due to lack of evidence of irrationality.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Attorney-GeneralRespondentGovernment AgencyJudgment for RespondentWon
Mavis Chionh of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Tan En En of Attorney-General’s Chambers
May Loh of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Bao HaiyanApplicantIndividualApplication dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Lee MengJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Mavis ChionhAttorney-General’s Chambers
Tan En EnAttorney-General’s Chambers
May LohAttorney-General’s Chambers
Leonard Loo Peng CheeLeonard Loo LLP

4. Facts

  1. Bao Haiyan, a Chinese citizen, sought to quash the MOM's decision to cancel her S Pass.
  2. Bao Haiyan was issued an S Pass to work as a marketing sales executive for Bella Beaute Parlour.
  3. Bao Haiyan was arrested for soliciting customers for sex at Geylang.
  4. Bao Haiyan admitted to soliciting in her statement to the police and MOM.
  5. Bao Haiyan's employer no longer wished to employ her after her arrest.
  6. MOM cancelled Bao Haiyan's S Pass because her employer no longer wanted to employ her.
  7. Bao Haiyan claimed her police statement was not properly translated and protested her innocence.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Bao Haiyan v Attorney-General, OS 558/2009, [2009] SGHC 224

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Bao Haiyan arrived in Singapore.
S Pass issued to Bao Haiyan to work for Bella Beaute Parlour.
Bao Haiyan arrested for soliciting customers for sex.
Mr James Low Chay Yong recorded a statement from Bao Haiyan.
Ministry of Manpower decided to cancel Bao Haiyan’s S Pass.
Bao Haiyan’s S Pass was cancelled.
Bao Haiyan was barred from being issued with a work pass for 12 months.
Bao Haiyan filed an affidavit.
Bao Haiyan filed a statement pursuant to O 53 r 1(2) of the Rules of Court.
Mr Syed Ahmad Al-Shihab filed an affidavit.
Application dismissed.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Irrationality of Decision
    • Outcome: The court found that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion that the decision to cancel her S Pass was irrational.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1985] AC 374
  2. Leave for Judicial Review
    • Outcome: The court held that the applicant did not meet the low threshold for obtaining leave for judicial review.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1996] 1 SLR 609
      • [2001] 1 SLR 644

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Mandatory order to quash the decision of the Ministry of Manpower

9. Cause of Actions

  • Judicial Review

10. Practice Areas

  • Administrative Law
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chan Hiang Leng Colin & Ors v Minister for Information and the ArtsCourt of AppealYes[1996] 1 SLR 609SingaporeCited for the principle that leave for judicial review requires a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion.
Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin LindaCourt of AppealYes[2001] 1 SLR 644SingaporeCited for the principle that leave would be granted if there appears to be a point which might, on further consideration, turn out to be an arguable case.
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil ServiceN/ANo[1985] AC 374England and WalesCited for the definition of irrationality in the Wednesbury sense.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury CorporationN/ANo[1948] 1 KB 223England and WalesCited as the origin of the Wednesbury unreasonableness test.
Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land RevenueN/AYes[2006] 3 SLR 507SingaporeCited for the principle that evidence and arguments placed before the court should not be skimpy or vague.
Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department, ex p SwatiN/AYes[1986] 1 WLR 477England and WalesCited for the principle that an applicant must show more than that it is not impossible that grounds for judicial review exist.
Chai Chwan v Singapore Medical CouncilHigh CourtYes[2009] SGHC 115SingaporeCited for following the decision in Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department, ex p Swati.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 53 r 1(2) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (Cap 91A)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • S Pass
  • Judicial Review
  • Irrationality
  • Leave for Judicial Review
  • Soliciting
  • Ministry of Manpower

15.2 Keywords

  • S Pass cancellation
  • judicial review
  • Ministry of Manpower
  • Singapore
  • employment
  • foreign worker

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Administrative Law
  • Immigration Law
  • Employment Law