IMPOUNDING OF PASSPORTS

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will inform the House of the provisions of the law under which the Immigration Department and other Government departments are empowered to impound valid passports of citizens.

Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, Question 1. But before that is answered, may I say, before any accusation is made, that I have no pecuniary interest in this question. I have, of course, written on behalf of a person, need I say who, to ask under what powers her passport was impounded. But I have no pecuniary interest at all.

The Minister of State for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Minister for Law): Sir, the Passports Regulation 15(1)(a), read with section 3(1)(g) of the Passports Act, empowers the Controller of Immigration to cancel a Singapore passport. The passport would be impounded after cancellation.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I know under what conditions the Singapore passport may be cancelled? Are there any conditions set out?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, under regulation 15(1)(a), the Minister for Home Affairs can give instructions to the Controller of Immigration to cancel the passport. He exercises his discretion in matters where public law and order is concerned. He can issue this instruction.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I know for what reasons or conditions that the restricted passport of Mrs Tang was impounded by the Immigration Department?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) had informed the Minister for Home Affairs that they were investigating the tax matters of Mr Tang Liang Hong, and that Mrs Tang Liang Hong (Madam Teo Siew Har) was involved in removing some tax files from Mr Tang's office to the home. And that she also may be of assistance in answering questions on the administration of Mr Tang's tax matters. The Comptroller of Income Tax was of the view that her passport should be cancelled and impounded. The Minister for Home Affairs considered these grounds and, considering them to be valid, exercised his powers under regulation 15.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask whether the Minister is aware that under section 87 of the Income Tax Act the power is given to the Comptroller of Income Tax to direct that any person leaving Singapore should be stopped or prevented if he has not paid taxes assessed upon him? Is it under this section that the decision was taken or was it under any other section?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, obviously, Mr Jeyaretnam has not listened to my answer carefully. I stated that it was under the Passports Act and the Passports Regulations wherein the powers have been exercised, not the Income Tax Act.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I understood the Minister to say that it was because some files were removed from Mr Tang's office by the income tax officer that it was deemed necessary to prevent Mrs Tang leaving. Was it because of that or not?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, again, the Member has not listened to my answer carefully. She was involved herself in the removal of some files from Mr Tang's office. And as IRAS was investigating his tax matters, the Comptroller was of the view that she would be of assistance in answering and furnishing information to the Comptroller on Mr Tang's tax matters.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Minister say whether any taxes were due from Mrs Tang at the time that her passport was impounded?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, that was not the issue. That was not the purpose for impounding her passport. IRAS was very carefully investigating a person's tax matters, in this case, Mr Tang Liang Hong. They have to do their job judiciously and thoroughly. And if a person is deemed to be able to assist in these investigations, and in this case it is not just that, but she was seen to be involved in removing some of the files from Mr Tang's office, the Comptroller in carrying out his duties would want to be thorough and therefore made a request to the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel and impound her passport, so that she can help in the investigations.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Will the Minister then confirm that it did not come under section 87 at all?

Assoc Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I have said it before, no.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you. I have no supplementary question, Sir. But may I raise with you, for further clarification, the reasons advanced on your behalf for disallowing my other Question to the Prime Minister that was submitted, asking why Parliament could not sit in March.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, your question has not been admitted on grounds which were, in fact, conveyed to you. The inadmissibility of a Question for Oral Answer is not a ground for debate in this House. I believe the reasons for disallowing your Question have been communicated to you and you should let the matter rest at that.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the grounds that were advanced were that it had been dealt with.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, as I pointed out to you, inadmissibility of a Question cannot be the subject of a debate in the Chamber. That is provided for under the Standing Orders.

Mr Jeyaretnam: If it pleases you, Sir.