Singapore's High Court underscores importance of following work pass system
Singapore's High Court recently dealt with a case involving false declarations in work pass applications, highlighting important employment law issues for HR professionals.
The case centred on a pet grooming business owner accused of abetting false declarations in work pass applications for two foreign nationals.
The workers argued they were brought to Singapore under the pretense of domestic work, but were actually employed as pet groomers.
They claimed the business owner orchestrated this scheme to bypass foreign worker quotas. However, the business owner maintained her innocence, stating she believed the workers genuinely intended to work as domestic helpers.
False statements in Singapore work pass
The High Court examined accusations that a pet grooming business owner abetted false declarations in work pass applications for two foreign nationals.
According to the prosecution, the business owner orchestrated a plan for these individuals to get work passes as foreign domestic workers, but actually intended to employ them in her pet grooming business.
The prosecution argued that the business owner was heavily involved in the work pass application process. They claimed she viewed herself as the actual employer of the foreign workers, despite not being listed as their official employer on the applications.
In contrast, the defence argued that the business owner truly believed the foreign nationals planned to work as domestic helpers when they applied for work passes.
They said there was no prior agreement for these individuals to work at the pet grooming business.
Workers’ conduct with work passes
The court looked at how the foreign workers behaved after returning to Singapore with their new work passes.
It was noted that they went back to working at the pet grooming business right away, instead of going to their official employers.
When asked to explain this, the business owner gave conflicting accounts. The court said: "[The business owner's] embellished and confused evidence could not be attributed to a lapse of recollection."
‘Official employers’ on work pass application
The court also considered why the people listed as official employers on the work pass applications didn't do anything when their supposed domestic helpers didn't show up for work.
Despite claiming they urgently needed help at home, these individuals didn't try to find their missing employees or cancel their work passes.
The court found this behaviour odd, stating:
"No reasonable person who needed the services of a domestic helper would have allowed the helpers to be continually absent from their household. Active steps would have been taken to end the employment of the missing domestic helper and/or to employ a new one."
False declarations for work pass applications
The High Court upheld the business owner's conviction but changed the charges to reflect abetment by engaging in a conspiracy to make false declarations for work pass applications. The court stressed the need for deterrence in such cases, saying:
"The dominant sentencing consideration was that of deterrence, in order to protect the integrity of the work pass system."
When deciding on the sentence, the court looked at several factors, including how important the false statements were, how sophisticated the deception was, and what effects the offence had. The court noted:
"[T]here was harm caused to the integrity of the work pass system as a result of [the business owner's] offending (amongst other harm caused, such as the adverse impact of [the business owner's] offending on the regulation of the foreign labour market in Singapore)."
In the end, the court gave a sentence of six weeks in prison.
