In the current situation, very unlikely if the SC who sponsored the PR is residing out of SG. Just my 2 cents.ricedoll wrote:My question is whether he can maintain his PR while working and living overseas? PR sponsored by spouse.
In the current situation, very unlikely if the SC who sponsored the PR is residing out of SG. Just my 2 cents.ricedoll wrote:My question is whether he can maintain his PR while working and living overseas? PR sponsored by spouse.
As has been pointed out to you several times by several people, what is written as "it can be done" does not mean it is done, but it is on the books in case the Government finds it advantageous to do so. As I pointed out before, the government almost always leaves themselves a backdoor if at all possible. Most of their statutes are written thus.Those are two important facts, so thank you for suggesting we look at the Constitution, acts, and regulations. Everything else in your post appears to be your personal opinion and/or speculation. Fair enough, but please note I have not offered a view on the probability of PR approval. I don't know who you're arguing with.
It's the same thing again. Like it or not this probability is critical so if you not offer such a view then what? (0 to 1) all good? Normally people do not advise on options of near zero likelihood to happen or if they do, they make it very clear. It may costs the other people time, money, sometimes a chance for something better and a lot of hopes. You are on this board long enough to see how different people are and that they come often with a lot of expectations. Managing these expectations is a part of the job for anyone who decided to respond.BBCWatcher wrote:Fair enough, but please note I have not offered a view on the probability of PR approval.
So... be clear... at least a couple of mods know the history of Mad Scientist... a lot of his history... that he is even back posting on this board says something of his courage.BBCWatcher wrote:Everybody is pseudonymous. You don't know me, I don't know you (and don't particularly care to), and, most importantly, nobody knows the original poster's full background and circumstances. That's fine.
No, this really isn't "critical." There is no fee to put in a PR application, and secondary costs generally aren't significant. Even if they were, the original poster is living overseas and earning a great income. I don't see any harm in trying, and I presume the original poster is not going to do something foolish like sell his house and leave his job before a decision on his application.x9200 wrote:Like it or not this probability is critical so if you not offer such a view then what?
It's amusing to me how "Donald Duck" purports to know the degree of expertise and experience of "Road Runner" v. "Charlie Chaplin."Strong Eagle wrote:Mad Scientist knows infinitely more than you do on this subject... He has had intimate experience with the Singapore gahmen.
And this is of course a private thread other people will never see and will not make any conclusion based on it. And if they do, they would carefully asses their similarities to the OP's situation.BBCWatcher wrote:No, this really isn't "critical." There is no fee to put in a PR application, and secondary costs generally aren't significant. Even if they were, the original poster is living overseas and earning a great income. I don't see any harm in trying, and I presume the original poster is not going to do something foolish like sell his house and leave his job before a decision on his applicationx9200 wrote:Like it or not this probability is critical so if you not offer such a view then what?
As I said, you know nothing of Mad Scientist, and yet, would pretend to be his equal. Don't delude yourself.BBCWatcher wrote:It's amusing to me how "Donald Duck" purports to know the degree of expertise and experience of "Road Runner" v. "Charlie Chaplin."Strong Eagle wrote:Mad Scientist knows infinitely more than you do on this subject... He has had intimate experience with the Singapore gahmen.I am not so...arrogant to presume.
OK, now we have a third individual's estimate of the original poster's probability of PR approval.x9200 wrote:What sense does it make to provide an advice for something of the 1/10000000 likelihood to happen?
The No I mentioned was just my response to your claim that the probability is not critical. It is. Always. Universally at least to advise on this or that option. This was an example to illustrate it. You are trying to deviate the conversation from something you just claimed and what defied any common sense. If it does not fit the original claim lets try to find a scenario where it may not work or take it out of the local context.BBCWatcher wrote:OK, now we have a third individual's estimate of the original poster's probability of PR approval.x9200 wrote:What sense does it make to provide an advice for something of the 1/10000000 likelihood to happen?
I'll disagree with your estimate for the simple fact that Singapore's entire population is about 5.5 million, approximately half the number of your denominator. I am highly confident ICA (and its predecessor agency) has/have not received anywhere near that number of overseas PR applications over Singapore's entire history, never mind applications from overseas ex-citizens married to citizens with citizen children who have served their full-time NS and who earn S$15,000 per month. In other words, there isn't enough historical evidence to estimate 1/10 million odds even if every PR application in these or similar circumstances has been rejected to date.
SMS's estimate ("99.99%" chance of rejection, i.e. 1/10000 approval rate) at least passes a basic mathematical and statistical sanity check.
So let's suppose for sake of argument SMS's estimate is correct. Is a 1/10000 chance of approval worth applying for PR, with no application fee? Only the original poster can answer that question for himself. Meanwhile, I offer no estimate other than "possible." Which is really the opposite of "arrogant," isn't it?
Users browsing this forum: niceit198 and 4 guests