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 Court1.2 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 Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment for Respondent | Won | Mavis Chionh of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tan En En of Attorney-General’s Chambers May Loh of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
Bao Haiyan | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
---|---|---|
Tan Lee Meng | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
Counsel Name | Organization |
---|---|
Mavis Chionh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
Tan En En | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
May Loh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
Leonard Loo Peng Chee | Leonard Loo LLP |
4. Facts
- Bao Haiyan, a Chinese citizen, sought to quash the MOM's decision to cancel her S Pass.
- Bao Haiyan was issued an S Pass to work as a marketing sales executive for Bella Beaute Parlour.
- Bao Haiyan was arrested for soliciting customers for sex at Geylang.
- Bao Haiyan admitted to soliciting in her statement to the police and MOM.
- Bao Haiyan's employer no longer wished to employ her after her arrest.
- MOM cancelled Bao Haiyan's S Pass because her employer no longer wanted to employ her.
- Bao Haiyan claimed her police statement was not properly translated and protested her innocence.
5. Formal Citations
- Bao Haiyan v Attorney-General, OS 558/2009, [2009] SGHC 224
6. Timeline
Date | Event |
---|---|
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
- 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
- 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
- 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 Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chan Hiang Leng Colin & Ors v Minister for Information and the Arts | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that leave for judicial review requires a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion. |
Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR 644 | Singapore | Cited 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 Service | N/A | No | [1985] AC 374 | England and Wales | Cited for the definition of irrationality in the Wednesbury sense. |
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation | N/A | No | [1948] 1 KB 223 | England and Wales | Cited as the origin of the Wednesbury unreasonableness test. |
Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue | N/A | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR 507 | Singapore | Cited 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 Swati | N/A | Yes | [1986] 1 WLR 477 | England and Wales | Cited 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 Council | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 115 | Singapore | Cited 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 Name | Jurisdiction |
---|---|
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
Area Name | Relevance Score |
---|---|
Administrative Law | 90 |
Judicial Review | 85 |
Work Visa | 75 |
Employment of Foreign Manpower Act | 70 |
Criminal Law | 30 |
Prostitution | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Administrative Law
- Immigration Law
- Employment Law