S’porean man, 70, who used Philippines passport 46 times to enter & exit S’pore has appeal rejected – Mothership.SG

On the 46th occasion, when he attempted to leave Singapore using the same passport, he was arrested.

He was also found to have submitted false statements in his disembarkation forms on 23 occasions when entering Singapore.

Goh claimed he obtained the passport out of “necessity”, alleging that “corrupt” Chinese officials were after his land and properties, and that Chinese authorities had seized his passport and failed to return it.

The passport bore Goh’s photograph but carried the particulars of a Filipino man, “Boris Jacinto Ngo”, born in 1967. Goh was born in 1955.

Was bankrupt and needed permission to travel

Although Goh raised several arguments in his defence — including claiming that the passport was an “investment passport” — the trial judge found that he had “masqueraded as Ngo Boris Jacinto out of sheer convenience and disregard for the law”.

Court records showed that Goh had applied for a Singapore passport at the Singapore Consulate-General in Xiamen on Apr. 28, 2010, but was not issued one due to unresolved bankruptcy matters.

He was an undischarged bankrupt from May 2001 to June 2015 and required permission to travel during that period.

The trial judge noted that the passport enabled Goh to enter and leave Singapore without seeking the required permission from the Official Assignee, the court officer who administers the affairs of bankrupt individuals.

After considering deterrence as a key sentencing principle, along with several aggravating factors, the judge imposed a global sentence of 15 months and six weeks’ imprisonment.

Appealed based on his interpretations of the law

In his appeal, Goh argued that he should be acquitted of the charges under the Immigration Act for knowingly producing a false or misleading passport.

His argument centred on his interpretation of the legal wording of the offence under Section 28(4)(d) of the Singapore Immigration Act.

He contended that the offence is only committed when an immigration officer first makes a “question, enquiry or demand” before the traveller knowingly produces the misleading document.

As the prosecution had called only one immigration officer to testify at trial, Goh argued that his conviction could not stand because not every officer to whom he had presented the Philippines passport on the 46 occasions was called as a witness.

He also argued that producing the Philippines passport and submitting the disembarkation form upon entry into Singapore amounted to “one and the same conduct or act”.

On that basis, he sought an acquittal on 23 of the passport charges that corresponded to the disembarkation form charges, arguing that he should not be punished twice for the same act.

Appeal dismissed

The appeal judge said he found “no reason” to disturb Goh’s conviction on the charges relating to the production of a false travel document.

The judge rejected Goh’s interpretation that the offence applies only when an immigration officer makes a preceding question, enquiry or demand before the traveller produces the false or misleading document.

Instead, he agreed with the prosecution that no such requirement exists, and that the “mere knowing production of the false or misleading document” is sufficient to constitute the offence.

“In my view, adopting the appellant’s interpretation would engender an absurd result. I agree with the respondent that if the appellant’s interpretation was adopted, a traveller could simply avoid liability under [Section 28(4)(d)] by preemptively producing a false or misleading passport before any question, enquiry or demand can be made. Such an outcome makes no sense.”

The judge also found that the passport offences were distinct from the offences relating to false statements in the disembarkation forms.

In particular, the disembarkation forms included an additional false declaration that Goh had “never used a passport under a different name to enter Singapore”.

In conclusion, the judge said Goh had strained the interpretation of two statutory provisions and sought to impose an unwarranted burden on them.

“Stripped of the seemingly attractive arguments that did not withstand close scrutiny, the appellant’s case is one of a recalcitrant offender who repeatedly violated Singapore’s immigration laws for his own private and business affairs.”

Top photo from Canva