TAN WAH PIOW (Entry into Britain)

Mr P. Selvadurai asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Education if he will enlighten this House as to how Mr Tan Wah Piow, who had absconded before reporting for National Service, managed to enter Britain; whether Mr Tan had valid travel documents. and if so, how were they acquired, if not, how was he allowed entry into Britain in June. 1976; and what action, if any, the Government intends to take against Mr Tan.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, soon after Tan Wah Piow absconded from National Service in October 1975, our Immigration Department established from their records that his Singapore (International) passport had expired. His passport was issued on 4th March, 1969. Its validity was extended on 13th March, 1974 to 18th October, 1974 with a clearly impressed endorsement that no further extension could be made except by the office of issue which is the Immigration Department. This was because Tan Wah Piow was in the call-up age and had to produce to the Immigration Department an Exit Permit from the Ministry of Defence before any further extension could be considered. No application was received by the Immigration Department for an extension beyond 18th October. 1974.

On 21st October, 1976, the press reported Tan Wah Piow's appearance in London. It stated that Tan Wah Piow had entered the U.K, on a Singapore passport. Since Tan Wah Piow's passport had expired, it was evident that he must have tampered with his expired passport. We requested and obtained from the British authorities photostat copies of Tan Wah Piow's passport.

The British authorities have now given us a photostat copy showing an endorsement on the last page of Tan Wah Piow's passport dated 24th October, 1974, purporting to extend the validity of his passport to 4th March, 1979. The photostat showed it to be forged. Evidence of the forgery include the following:

(1) the signature appearing on that endorsement is not that of any of the two officers who were authorised to sign such endorsements in October 1 974;

(2) contrary to the established practice of the Immigration Department, the endorsement did not indicate that a fee for the endorsement was paid; and

(3) contrary to the established practice of the Immigration Department the endorsement did not show the number of the required Exit Permit from the Ministry of Defence.

How Tan Wah Piow was allowed to enter Britain, I do not know. Photostat copies of Tan Wah Piow's passport showed that he did not go directly from Singapore to the U.K. He could not have got through Singapore airport or any other checkpoint undetected with his expired passport. According to the press. Tan Wah Piow claimed he slipped into Malaysia. We do not have any other evidence of this for his passport was not endorsed either in Kuala Lumpur or Penang airport or any other exit checkpoint in Malaysia. The endorsement of the passport showed that he arrived in Thailand on 12th June, 1976, and stayed there until 23rd June. 1976, when he flew off from Bangkok. He then proceeded to Amsterdam before arriving at London on 30th June. 1976.

3.30 p.m.

It was reported that he entered U.K, and was given a permit to stay for six months. It is well known that those who wan~ to visit the U.K, for six months have to apply to a British embassy or high commission for an entry certificate. The grant of an entry certificate is not automatic, and it is unlikely that a forged passport extension would go unnoticed.

As to what action the Government intends to take. the question is whether we should have him extradited and on what grounds. Let me recount Tan Wah Piow's position. He was convicted for rioting and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. He has served his term. Immediately after his release, he was granted, at his request, three days' compassionate leave before reporting for National Service. He absconded.

According to the law, absconding from National Service is not an extraditable offence.

But we have now evidence from a photostat given by the British authorities that he has committed forgery with regard to his passport. Forgery is an extraditable offence.

However, we should await the decision of the British authorities as to whether they will be prosecuting Tan Wah Piow since he has used an expired passport with a forged extension to enter the U.K. I am advised this is a criminal offence under British law. If the British authorities decide to overlook this offence and we decide to ask for Tan Wah Piow's extradition, we shall request British cooperation to give us evidence as to when and how Tan Wah Piow entered the U.K, and that he used his expired passport with a forged extension.

Members may recall that when Tan Wah Piow failed to report for National Service, the Police, after consulting the Ministry of Defence, offered a reward of $50 for information leading to his arrest. If anything, he is now worth less.

Mr P. Selvadurai (Kuo Chuan): The Minister's answer has interesting implications, Sir. Can he now tell us how it was possible for Mr Tan Wah Piow to move in and out of several countries and entered the United Kingdom, without difficulty, on an expired passport with an obviously forged extension? He must have had backers not only to foot the bill for his journeys but also to get through Immigration.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: It is reasonable to infer that Tan Wah Piow received help to make his journey to London and to obtain an entry certificate to stay in the U.K, for six months on a passport with a forged extension.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Sir, although Tan Wah Piow is no loss to Singapore if it is finally decided not to extradite him, will not this encourage other youths who are liable for national service to follow his footsteps, falsely endorsing an expired passport in order to escape national service?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, there may be a few wayward youths who may try, but for them to succeed in going through British immigration they must have backers who are capable of helping them. Every year thousands of our youths report for national service. They have a stake in the future of Singapore and are willing to do their share to defend that stake. I believe few would think of escaping national service, much less forging passport endorsements with very little chance of escaping detection either on departure from Singapore or on arrival in London, especially without an entry permit.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, the Minister has just said that for those few wayward youths to succeed in going through British immigration with forged passports they must have "backers" who are capable of helping them. Would he not think that it is more likely that the "backers" must be "under obligation", rather than just being capable of helping them?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, perhaps the Member for Punggol may be right there. However. I am in no position to say further to what I have already stated.

Mr J. F. Conceicao (Katong): Sir, will not Tan Wah Piow's backers, as they have been described by my colleague, the Member for Kuo Chuan, whoever these shadowy individuals may be, feel encouraged to continue their disruptive tactics if he is not extradited to face charges in Singapore?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, it is of little consequence how Tan Wah Piow's backers feel on this matter, The question is, are they in a position to influence others in Singapore to act like Tan Wah Piow? I would think they would not meet with more success than they have had with Tan Wah Piow. The political situation in Singapore does not favour the clumsy disruptive activities of types like Tan Wah Piow.

Mr Ho See Beng: Sir, can the Minister throw some light on this mystery? Tan Wah Piow entered the United Kingdom through London on 30th June, 1976, and was given six months' stay. He must have his passport with him like any other visitor. What puzzles me is this: how could the British authorities readily get hold of his passport to make photostat copies? Can the Minister throw some light on this matter?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, to state the fact. The photostat copy was provided 20 days after we requested for it from the British authorities. However. I am not in a position to say when such a photostat copy was made.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Sir, the Minister talked about passport forgery. How was it done? Was it by handwriting or by rubber stamping?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, by both. It has got to be chopped, and after it has been chopped it has got to have a signature on it.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Sir, how was the rubber stamp chopped?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, if only I knew how he did it.