WHEN APCHING THE ARPT; FLC SAW IT VISUALLY; BUT ATC ADVISED THE ARPT WAS IMC. FLC TOLD TWR THEY COULD LAND VFR; WHICH WAS APPROVED. LOW CLOUDS ON APCH REQUIRED A GAR. FLC THEN LANDED VISUALLY ON RECIPROCAL RWY.

Narrative

IT WAS AN UNEVENTFUL FLT FROM KANSAI; JAPAN (RJBB); UNTIL ABOUT 20 MI FROM OUR PLANNED LNDG AT SINGAPORE SELETAR ARPT (WSSL). (THIS IS SINGAPORE'S GA ARPT; WITH NO PUBLISHED IFR APCHS.) AT ABOUT 20 MI FROM LNDG; SINGAPORE CTL INFORMED US THAT WSSL WAS IMC (IFR). THIS SURPRISED ME; BECAUSE I COULD SEE THE GEOGRAPHICAL LAYOUT (BAYS AND ISLANDS) RIGHT WHERE THE ARPT WAS LOCATED. OUR FLT VISIBILITY WAS UNLIMITED WITH NO CEILING. I TOLD SINGAPORE CTL WE WERE VFR AND WOULD CONTINUE. AT NO TIME DID SINGAPORE CTL INDICATE WE COULD NOT CONTINUE TOWARD OUR DEST. SINGAPORE CTL SWITCHED US TO SINGAPORE TWR ABOUT 8 MI FROM LNDG; WHERE THEY SAID THEY WERE IMC; I TOLD THEM WE WERE VFR AND LOOKING AT THE FIELD (ARPT). WHEN WE INFORMED THE TWR OF THIS; THEY TOLD US TO TURN R FOR A L DOWNWIND ENTRY TO RWY 3. AS WE ENTERED A L DOWNWIND; I COULD SEE A LOW SCATTERED LAYER OF SCUD ON THE S SIDE OF THE ARPT. AS I TURNED BASE; LOOKING TOWARD THE SUN; THE SCUD HAD OBSCURED THE FINAL APCH PATH TO RWY 3. I TOLD THE TWR THIS WOULDN'T WORK. I MADE A GAR AND THE TWR GAVE ME VECTORS AND I MADE A NORMAL LNDG ON RWY 21; MAINTAINING VFR ALWAYS. I CALLED THE TWR ON THE PHONE TO CLR UP ANY QUESTIONS OR PROBS; AND THEY DID NOT SEEM TO INDICATE THERE WERE ANY. HOWEVER; IF AT ANY TIME SINGAPORE RADIO OR TWR DID NOT WANT US TO CONTINUE THE FLT INTO WSSL; THEY SHOULD HAVE SAID UNABLE LNDG; SAY INTENTIONS; OR GIVE US HOLDING INSTRUCTIONS. THE ICAO NEEDS TO WORK TOWARDS MORE STANDARDIZED INTL AVIATION VOCABULARY.