Refused entry into Singapore

[desmondspencer]

If her boyfriend is indeed in the army serving his mandatory 2 years of service, he would be court marshaled for leaving the country even for a day.

Entry into all countries are generally the same,

proof of return, proof of lodging & a fair amount

of local currency to take you through the intended stay.

Above are the generally the basic prerequisites

for entry.

Tell her to keep a copy of his military id with her passport (coupled with both copies of his parents id)

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Basil B]

To enter another country is a privilege not a right.

But when a person has invested in time and expense, to be turned away at the border it would be common decency to to give a good reason in writing and an opportunity to appeal.

Sounds like decisions depend upon which side of the bed the IO got out that morning.

[mrtoad]

If her boyfriend is indeed in the army serving his mandatory 2 years of service, he would be court marshaled for leaving the country even for a day.

Entry into all countries are generally the same,

proof of return, proof of lodging & a fair amount

of local currency to take you through the intended stay.

Above are the generally the basic prerequisites

for entry.

Tell her to keep a copy of his military id with her passport (coupled with both copies of his parents id)

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

No he would not be court marshaled, conscripts ar able to leave the country, provided they have written permission. From my recollection, used to have an attached form to the passport when travelling out of Singapore. You may be basing yours on other countries regulations, but Singapore is a little different. When my old college friends were doing NS we still used to take trips out of Singapore.

[harrry]

Whilst I grant each country has the right to refuse entry at the border I have little respect for those which do so when the reason is one that could have and should have been asked at the time of visa issue.

[build6]

If her boyfriend is indeed in the army serving his mandatory 2 years of service, he would be court marshaled for leaving the country even for a day.

Entry into all countries are generally the same,

proof of return, proof of lodging & a fair amount

of local currency to take you through the intended stay.

Above are the generally the basic prerequisites

for entry.

Tell her to keep a copy of his military id with her passport (coupled with both copies of his parents id)

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

why would having copies of those IDs be remotely useful? If you were married then the marriage certificate is what's important. if you're not married then none of those are useful. I think the SIL's difficulties result at least in part from not having documentation for her residence in a hotel (though I'd suspect some hotels would ring more alarm bells than others!), and that wedding invitation would've made a big difference.

To enter another country is a privilege not a right.

But when a person has invested in time and expense, to be turned away at the border it would be common decency to to give a good reason in writing and an opportunity to appeal.

Sounds like decisions depend upon which side of the bed the IO got out that morning.

Look at it the other way. If you are issued an official latter saying "we are denying you entry on suspicion of prostitution", I think it is worse for you. People who don't know you personally (prospective employers?) are likely to look at you more askance. Right now it's "oh those irritating/stupid/crazy Singaporeans, randomly denying people entry". Imagine if you were denied entry and OFFICIALLY told "its because we think you're a prostitute". You can deny it of course but you'll get "there's no smoke without fire" problems. It's hard to prove a negative (that's why the prosecution has the burden of proof and the defence just needs reasonable doubt?).

Given the choice of being refused entry with no official reason stated vs. being refused entry and being told on paper and in permanent record I'm a whore, if I were female I'd choose the former.

Whilst I grant each country has the right to refuse entry at the border I have little respect for those which do so when the reason is one that could have and should have been asked at the time of visa issue.

I believe it's visa-free/on-arrival entry (or rather refusal) we are talking about, which is the point.

[harrry]

If her boyfriend is indeed in the army serving his mandatory 2 years of service, he would be court marshaled for leaving the country even for a day.

Entry into all countries are generally the same,

proof of return, proof of lodging & a fair amount

of local currency to take you through the intended stay.

Above are the generally the basic prerequisites

for entry.

Tell her to keep a copy of his military id with her passport (coupled with both copies of his parents id)

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

why would having copies of those IDs be remotely useful? If you were married then the marriage certificate is what's important. if you're not married then none of those are useful. I think the SIL's difficulties result at least in part from not having documentation for her residence in a hotel (though I'd suspect some hotels would ring more alarm bells than others!), and that wedding invitation would've made a big difference.

To enter another country is a privilege not a right.

But when a person has invested in time and expense, to be turned away at the border it would be common decency to to give a good reason in writing and an opportunity to appeal.

Sounds like decisions depend upon which side of the bed the IO got out that morning.

Look at it the other way. If you are issued an official latter saying "we are denying you entry on suspicion of prostitution", I think it is worse for you. People who don't know you personally (prospective employers?) are likely to look at you more askance. Right now it's "oh those irritating/stupid/crazy Singaporeans, randomly denying people entry". Imagine if you were denied entry and OFFICIALLY told "its because we think you're a prostitute". You can deny it of course but you'll get "there's no smoke without fire" problems. It's hard to prove a negative (that's why the prosecution has the burden of proof and the defence just needs reasonable doubt?).

Given the choice of being refused entry with no official reason stated vs. being refused entry and being told on paper and in permanent record I'm a whore, if I were female I'd choose the former.

Whilst I grant each country has the right to refuse entry at the border I have little respect for those which do so when the reason is one that could have and should have been asked at the time of visa issue.

I believe it's visa-free/on-arrival entry (or rather refusal) we are talking about, which is the point.

Probably in this case. Though it is possible she applied for a visa previosly. It does not say and it is quite legal for her to do so.

We have however had many intances here of people arriving in this country with a pre issued visa and having problems and are constantly told it is within the immigration official's right to do so.

[tropo]

The OP's SIL is 22 years old, unemployed (working in family business) and unaccompanied. With a recent 3 week visit showing up in her passport (or on the computer), I would be more surprised if she gained entry than refused. I don't believe the IO's were heavy-handed in this case. The onus was on the girl and her boyfriend to give the IO's a compelling reason to let her visit.

Thailand Immigration seem to be quite easygoing about letting young girls fly out of Thailand, which makes the job for Singapore IO's even harder. If she was a Filipino she would never have gotten on the flight in the first place as the Philippine Immigration would have prevented her from leaving the Philippines. Earlier this month I had to go to the Philippines to get a 25 year old girl (my wife's friend) and even with me there they still gave us a grilling.

It's really not the best idea to let these young ladies travel unaccompanied.

The whole "visiting a boyfriend and attending a wedding" story is quite meaningless as far as the Singapore IO are concerned. Anyone can make up stories like that.

[thonglorjimmy]

The OP's SIL is 22 years old, unemployed (working in family business) and unaccompanied. With a recent 3 week visit showing up in her passport (or on the computer), I would be more surprised if she gained entry than refused. I don't believe the IO's were heavy-handed in this case. The onus was on the girl and her boyfriend to give the IO's a compelling reason to let her visit.

I need to correct you on this, yes she's 22 and works for the family business, where she is on a decent salary and been formally employed before and after obtaining her business degree, not all people working in the family business sell noodles from a roadside stall.

I don't think it's unreasonable for a person of any nationality, sex or age to legally holiday in another country, return home and then return to attend a function a few weeks later, providing there visit is genuine and affordable.

She could of course have stayed in Singapore after her holiday and attended the wedding, but she needed to be back at work.

Maybe she should have been better prepared for the visit, and this whole sorry episode has certainly been a learning experience for her, maybe she didn't expect the IO to treat her in such an off hand way and automatically jump to the wrong conclusions about her intentions, a view seemingly shared by some posters on this forum.

[tropo]

The OP's SIL is 22 years old, unemployed (working in family business) and unaccompanied. With a recent 3 week visit showing up in her passport (or on the computer), I would be more surprised if she gained entry than refused. I don't believe the IO's were heavy-handed in this case. The onus was on the girl and her boyfriend to give the IO's a compelling reason to let her visit.

I need to correct you on this, yes she's 22 and works for the family business, where she is on a decent salary and been formally employed before and after obtaining her business degree, not all people working in the family business sell noodles from a roadside stall.

I don't think it's unreasonable for a person of any nationality, sex or age to legally holiday in another country, return home and then return to attend a function a few weeks later, providing there visit is genuine and affordable.

She could of course have stayed in Singapore after her holiday and attended the wedding, but she needed to be back at work.

Maybe she should have been better prepared for the visit, and this whole sorry episode has certainly been a learning experience for her, maybe she didn't expect the IO to treat her in such an off hand way and automatically jump to the wrong conclusions about her intentions, a view seemingly shared by some posters on this forum.

Immigration had to assess, on the spot, the likelihood that the girl is a genuine tourist or not. Although she is provided a decent salary working in her family business, it's probably not a verifiable position from the IO's point of view. Can she provide a company letter from her employer verifying her position?

The first long visit to Singapore of 3 weeks, followed by another visit soon after does not seem reasonable (normal) for a regularly employed 22 year old girl.

Unfortunately, due to the volume of "people trafficking" in SE Asia, the onus is on the girl to prove that she has genuine intentions.

Immigration officers make decisions based on probability. They don't have time to collect hard proof. A Filipino friend was twice refused a tourist visa to visit Australia. Their decision to refuse was based on the likelihood that she wouldn't return.

I've had to put up with these type of "games" by immigration in the Philippines for years. It's just how it is and you have to make allowances for it. If my wife was travelling to Singapore on her own she'd likely be refused entry too. Just a few months ago, because I made the mistake of using a different lane, she was being questioned by the Hong Kong Immigration when we arrived there. Of course it's a breeze for us now as she has a passport in her married name.

Seriously, how many 20 year old Thai ladies go on extended genuine vacations to Singapore? How would you feel about it if you were a Singapore Immigration officer? Really, the onus is on the girl to prove she is genuine.

[theoldgit]

As the OP has stated, she should have been better prepared and it was a learning experience for her, I suspect also a tad humiliating.

[Will27]

To enter another country is a privilege not a right.

But when a person has invested in time and expense, to be turned away at the border it would be common decency to to give a good reason in writing and an opportunity to appeal.

Sounds like decisions depend upon which side of the bed the IO got out that morning.

It's all a bit unsavoury to be honest and could've have been handled better by Singapore Immigration.

Appeals at the border are an impracticality due to lack of resources, time constraints and volume.

To be honest, the best thing once you've been refused is to get back on a flight home ASAP.

[Will27]

Whilst I grant each country has the right to refuse entry at the border I have little respect for those which do so when the reason is one that could have and should have been asked at the time of visa issue.

The reason why visa's get cancelled at borders is because quite often things turn up at an interview or a search

by customs.

So getting a visa to is one thing, but customs finding a brothel phone number in hand luggage

would obviously raise red flags.

[Will27]

The OP's SIL is 22 years old, unemployed (working in family business) and unaccompanied. With a recent 3 week visit showing up in her passport (or on the computer), I would be more surprised if she gained entry than refused. I don't believe the IO's were heavy-handed in this case. The onus was on the girl and her boyfriend to give the IO's a compelling reason to let her visit.

Thailand Immigration seem to be quite easygoing about letting young girls fly out of Thailand, which makes the job for Singapore IO's even harder. If she was a Filipino she would never have gotten on the flight in the first place as the Philippine Immigration would have prevented her from leaving the Philippines. Earlier this month I had to go to the Philippines to get a 25 year old girl (my wife's friend) and even with me there they still gave us a grilling.

It's really not the best idea to let these young ladies travel unaccompanied.

The whole "visiting a boyfriend and attending a wedding" story is quite meaningless as far as the Singapore IO are concerned. Anyone can make up stories like that.

Like I said previously, I think the decision to refuse had been made as soon as Immigration saw the short period of

time between visits.

So it's a bit harsh to blame the boyfriend when he wasn't even spoken to. In her favour, she does have a good travel

history. And one would've thought a wedding invitation is grounds enough for the visit.

Really, seeing a copy of the wedding invitation could've avoided all of this and it could've been done with a phone call.

[Will27]

The OP's SIL is 22 years old, unemployed (working in family business) and unaccompanied. With a recent 3 week visit showing up in her passport (or on the computer), I would be more surprised if she gained entry than refused. I don't believe the IO's were heavy-handed in this case. The onus was on the girl and her boyfriend to give the IO's a compelling reason to let her visit.

I need to correct you on this, yes she's 22 and works for the family business, where she is on a decent salary and been formally employed before and after obtaining her business degree, not all people working in the family business sell noodles from a roadside stall.

I don't think it's unreasonable for a person of any nationality, sex or age to legally holiday in another country, return home and then return to attend a function a few weeks later, providing there visit is genuine and affordable.

She could of course have stayed in Singapore after her holiday and attended the wedding, but she needed to be back at work.

Maybe she should have been better prepared for the visit, and this whole sorry episode has certainly been a learning experience for her, maybe she didn't expect the IO to treat her in such an off hand way and automatically jump to the wrong conclusions about her intentions, a view seemingly shared by some posters on this forum.

Immigration had to assess, on the spot, the likelihood that the girl is a genuine tourist or not. Although she is provided a decent salary working in her family business, it's probably not a verifiable position from the IO's point of view. Can she provide a company letter from her employer verifying her position?

The first long visit to Singapore of 3 weeks, followed by another visit soon after does not seem reasonable (normal) for a regularly employed 22 year old girl.

Unfortunately, due to the volume of "people trafficking" in SE Asia, the onus is on the girl to prove that she has genuine intentions.

Immigration officers make decisions based on probability. They don't have time to collect hard proof. A Filipino friend was twice refused a tourist visa to visit Australia. Their decision to refuse was based on the likelihood that she wouldn't return.

I've had to put up with these type of "games" by immigration in the Philippines for years. It's just how it is and you have to make allowances for it. If my wife was travelling to Singapore on her own she'd likely be refused entry too. Just a few months ago, because I made the mistake of using a different lane, she was being questioned by the Hong Kong Immigration when we arrived there. Of course it's a breeze for us now as she has a passport in her married name.

Seriously, how many 20 year old Thai ladies go on extended genuine vacations to Singapore? How would you feel about it if you were a Singapore Immigration officer? Really, the onus is on the girl to prove she is genuine.

Again, to be fair to the girl in question, Immigration could've phoned the boyfriend for confirmation of the wedding or requested

a fax. It's not like refusing someone entry and sending them back home is a trivial matter. Some checks should be done.

IMO, it's a bit harsh saying she wasn't properly prepared. True, a copy of the wedding invitation and a phone call

might've swayed them, but I don't think they were interested. I think the decision had already been made.

The young girl probably thought as she had been there previously, everything would be ok.

It's easy to see how a young girl in her shoes would feel embarrassed and intimidated IMO.

[Bender]

To be honest and more accurate, if thai girl are denied entry by Singapore immigration, its absolutely for the same reason

that they have also a hard time to get a proper visa for Europe/Us...

Not really welcome anywhere

[GrantSmith]

As the OP has stated, she should have been better prepared and it was a learning experience for her, I suspect also a tad humiliating.

Maybe not humiliating, as she stated to the OP that she shrugged her shoulders and chalked it up to her nationality..

Probably a bright and intelligent young lady..

As they say, shit happens, it does and often in this world of racial profiling. Unfortunately it's no fault of the her own and she can thank a magnitude of her country men and women for that..

OP be sure to appreciate your SIL and her attitude..

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[CHRISTIANa9]

I know of a thai lady who comes in for 3 weeks every 1 or 2 months working as a waitress in small restaurant. I know for a fact that she has been doing this for the past 2 years or maybe even longer. Maybe she's lucky, long lucky streak.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[taotoo]

I chose to leave the UK voluntarily all those years ago as I did not have any intention on living on a rainy cold island in the North Sea, and still didn't. It took him a while to compute that fact, but I was evenutally let through.

They are a breed onto themselves.

Obviously you didn't mind the 'rainy cold island in the North Sea' while it was providing opportunities unobtainable in your home country. Can see why they didn't want to let you back in.

[falkan]

alot of thai girls working in singapore - massage,bargirls etc etc and when a girl travelling alone no wonder they wondering..

next time dont travel alone and bring a atm statement with 200k that should work..

[David48]

What probably hasn't been said is a thank-you to thonglorjimmy for the OP

which reminds us of the issues faced by specifically visiting Singapore and

other nations that our Thai Partners / Friends / Relatives, do need to be

mindful of their travel history and be prepared when they front the Immigration

Officer's desk.

Nothing is a given ...

Thanks thonglorjimmy great OP ...

.

[theoldgit]

As the OP has stated, she should have been better prepared and it was a learning experience for her, I suspect also a tad humiliating.

Maybe not humiliating, as she stated to the OP that she shrugged her shoulders and chalked it up to her nationality..

Probably a bright and intelligent young lady..

As they say, shit happens, it does and often in this world of racial profiling. Unfortunately it's no fault of the her own and she can thank a magnitude of her country men and women for that..

OP be sure to appreciate your SIL and her attitude..

Fair point, maybe not humiliating, and though I cannot speak for her I suspect that, whilst she may have put on a brave face, she would have been embarrassed and maybe even a little hurt.

David48 makes a good point when he says that this whole sorry episode serves as a reminder of the difficulties some nationalities face when crossing some international borders, and the need to be prepared for every eventuality.

I know that when my partner and I recently toured Europe, despite the fact she was in possession of the relevant visas, we took copies of many of the supporting documents used to obtain the visas with us, bank details, hotel and flight reservations, our itinerary and the like, even her old passport containing previous European travel history, in the end she didn't encounter any problem, but it was better to be safe than sorry.

[theoldgit]

A number of off topic posts and responses removed.

[Captain Chaos]

My mother in law, sister in law and an English speaking cousin all came to Singapore to visit MrsCC and I last month. We moved to SG from BKK back in 2006 and I recall Changi immigration being quite snotty about the fact that we only had a letter to show that her Dependents Pass was in principle approved, not the little green card itself. They did eventually let her in, with a 14 day stamp. The rest is history. Anyway, with that in mind, I sent English speaking cousin a letter addressed to Changi Immigration saying who they were, why they were coming (wife is pregnant!) and that they could stay at our condo ... The full works! I needn't have bothered. Apparently the IO was very friendly and they all got 30 day stamps and were told "all ASEAN now". Everyone had a nice holiday in SG and they've all gone home now. Maybe they were lucky. Maybe the OP's SIL just got unlucky. Who knows?

[Seekingasylum]

Singapore officials derive their powers from the law, essentially the Immigration Act. Anyone who is a prohibited person is to be refused and removed. If a person is refused on the grounds that they are a prohibited person then, upon request, they shall be told of what category of prohibited person they are. The burden of proof falls upon the person and not the examining officer. I am no expert but there is provision within their rules for an appeal.

Profiling is quite a normal procedure within most immigration controls but this is usually founded upon sound principles and training, and assumes a certain level of intelligence, discretion and judgement among those charged with implementing the system. In Thailand such a system couldn't possibly work, but in many developed countries it is the status quo. Lest anyone witters on, citizenship and economic status is the key and not racial characteristics, although it would be fair to say if one is looking for a Nigerian fraudster from Lagos one might not necessarily examine a tourist flight from Finland.

I should imagine it would be quite easy to elicit the details of the refusal here since there is bound to be paperwork.

[Tomtomtom69]

I would take it up with the Singapore embassy and get them to refund the air tickets. She just needs to prove her story. In the ASEAN context this is unacceptable.

As said by others earlier, that someone does not need a visa for Singapore does not mean that they are guaranteed entry upon arrival. Even those who do hold a visa are not guaranteed entry.

Visa or no, immigration officers at ports of entry have the right to question travellers and if not satisfied, refuse entry.

This is not a Singapore thing; it is standard in most, if not all, countries.

However, if entry is refused then the traveller should be given a written explanation of why. This does not seem to have happened in this case.

So that would be the grounds for any complaint.

But getting the Singapore government to offer a refund of the cost of travel, or any other monetary compensation; in your dreams. At best they'd get an apology.

Not sure why you say that "In the ASEAN context this is unacceptable."

ASEAN nationals do not enjoy the same freedom of movement rights within ASEAN that EU nationals do within the EU. Though I understand moves are afoot to introduce such rights.

What I find amazing is that Singapore, a rich country with a per-capita income not much less than the EU, USA, Canada, Australia or NZ allows visa-free entry from citizens of poor countries like Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam (even if they are in ASEAN) and even Sri Lanka; none of these other developed countries allow the same. Even Hong Kong, which is fairly liberal too, allows Thais visa-free access but not citizens of Laos or Vietnam (even though Hong Kong used to grant visa-free access to the latter). Perhaps Singapore should consider doing the same for some nationals (though not Thais, who should continue to be able to enjoy visa-free access) but in any case, so should Thailand. Thai immigration should scrutinize visitors more just like Singapore is doing - right now virtually everyone who shows up at Thai immigration is guaranteed to be admitted - I have never heard of anyone being refused admittance to Thailand upon arriving. Somehow something is wrong here as there are surely lots of arriving visitors that wouldn't be admissible if their documents were examined more closely.

About ASEAN you are right - ASEAN citizens moving around the region can only stay for up to 30 days in each other's countries (sometimes less - i.e. overland entries by Thais to Singapore are just 14 days while Cambodia visits are 14 days both by air and land). I can stay for up to 90 days in both Malaysia and Singapore (and I'm far less likely to be scrutinized than an ASEAN citizen even if I stay long-term in those countries without a visa). The visa requirements for Cambodia, Vietnam (and Laos for most) is just a formality - all three countries only have a visa requirement in place to raise revenue anyway. Westerners also have an easy time securing visas for any and all ASEAN countries - Vietnamese for example can't get a Thai visa in either Laos or Cambodia. Basically most ASEAN nationals are expected to make use of visa-free privileges but watch out if they travel continuously in and out of a country or try to obtain a longer term visa. I don't have such issues. 5 tourist visas for Myanmar, including 3 within the past month? No problem and I can get as many as like. So yeah, ASEAN is a hell of a long way from the EU.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Tomtomtom69

[Jay Sata]

I've spent quite a bit of time in Singapore. The immigration system is derived from UK founders nearly 200 years ago.

I'm sorry to upset a some people but a lot of the Thai girls come in to work in massage parlours.

Immigration officers are smart when it comes to looking at the passport holder and the passport.

[oldthaihand99]

She said she wasn't asked where she was staying in Singapore

There would be no need to ask her. She should have already indicated it on her entry form to Singapore that she handed to the immigration officer at Changi airport.

Edited November 24, 2013 by oldthaihand99

[thai4me]

Firstly, the prerogative to allow entry lies with the officers of the country. They do not need to assign a reason to a persona non grata.

You may also want to check this out. Over and above the normal entry criteria, there is a supplementary rule that one should not be in Singapore exceeding X number of days in a 3 month period. I do not know the quantum but it could be not exceeding 30 days in a 90 days period according to the calendar quarter. If she has been regularly visiting Singapore and raking up the total number of days, then she needs to wait for the start of the next quarter.

[oldthaihand99]

What I don't know is if whether it makes sense for her to write in to the embassy asking for "clarification" and any information as to how to avoid this happening in the future, maybe writing something about her liking Singapore and wanting to go again many times shopping etc., perhaps alluding to being able to show references etc.; might take some back and forth. The point now is how to deal with the subsequent ramifications of having been denied entry once, as you pointed out. It would look better I think if "yes I have been denied entry once, to Singapore" is followed by something like "I liaised with their Embassy and have never had trouble ever again".

i'd suggest not to bother with that. If still interested in future visits to SG my recommendations are to do as many of the following as possible:

1. Wait 6 months

2. Stay at a hotel rather than freeloading, the more expensive the better. Money talks in SG. Carry evidence as regards your booking.

3. Go with a tour group, as someone suggested earlier in the thread.

4. Fly in with the BF/SO, & go ahead of him in the immigration lineup entering Changi.

5. Bring evidence as to your employment in LOS.

6. Carry money, TC's, cash on hand, the more the better. Proof of sufficient funds & then some, such as recent bank statements. Therefore evidence you are not coming to SG to work illegally.

7. Of course having a first world passport gives one special status. I recently visited SG twice, each time recieving a ninety day social visit pass on arrival, with less than a one month absence in between the two.

Alternately she could fly in to Changi not to enter SG but to go with her BF to Batam Indonesia less an hour away:

http://welcometobatam.com/faq.asp

Edited November 24, 2013 by oldthaihand99

[oldthaihand99]

I've spent quite a bit of time in Singapore. The immigration system is derived from UK founders nearly 200 years ago.

I'm sorry to upset a some people but a lot of the Thai girls come in to work in massage parlours.

Immigration officers are smart when it comes to looking at the passport holder and the passport.

Thai girls also work illegally in SG in the bars (e.g. Orchard Towers complex) & the streets of Geylang. Some beautifully dressed & made up Thai boys can be found there as well.