ex Singaporean husband w/ Singapore wife

[ecureilx]

It's amusing to me how "Donald Duck" purports to know the degree of expertise and experience of "Road Runner" v. "Charlie Chaplin." I am not so...arrogant to presume.

And that's getting a bit personal, ain't it ?

[x9200]

Bottom line: the government itself says it's possible, and the government gets to make the decision.

But you don't know if there are any internal SOPs etc the gov. uses for such decision and the SOPs may say (for example) no PR for such cases until next whatever. In other words even your main claim is unjustified. Using your mechanistic logic the bottom line should be: it is not possible (for you and majority of us) to determine.

[zegnaangelo]

Yep, but the OP doesn't want to be a Singaporean.

Perhaps DIDN'T is the better word.

Yes indeed. Didn't is the right word. Now, circumstances have changed - so keeping my mind (and options) open

Indeed, looks like the consensus is that would be hard to get PR - but perhaps I should try (haven't made up my mind yet - don't really want to waste money because I am offshore too... so it does seem to be a little bit of a catch-22)

FWIW, when I asked ICA counter what will happen if a person who gave up Singapore citizenship can get PR, they said will be "assessed according to the provisions at the time". So very vague...

Also just to note, when I filled in the renunciation of Singapore citizenship form, it did say that being an ex-Singaporean has no standing in any subsequent work or PR applications (of course did not say it was a downright no)e

LTVP may work for me - at least gives me a chance to go back to Singapore and stay and perhaps get a job...

the risk by going down the EP route is, if the EP is rejected, and I had resigned my job here overseas, would be a pretty bad situation to be in...

[PNGMK]

And that's the answer that SMS and MS have been alluding to.

[zegnaangelo]

Second, for this thread-starter, if you want a PR - do you intend to work in SG? Or just apply and keep for future use? I heard you need a job in SG to maintain a REP and a PR.

just apply and keep for future use. at least have certainty if i want to return to singapore in future.
going the EP route could be a little more risky

[singaporeflyer]

just apply and keep for future use. at least have certainty if i want to return to singapore in future.

This is exactly what ICA is trying to prevent.

[zegnaangelo]

FWIW, there's one case of ex-Singaporean coming back as PR. He's the ex-head of McKinsey from what I recall..
Of course, he on a different league from myself

[BBCWatcher]

And that's the answer that SMS and MS have been alluding to.

Would it be "arrogant" to point out that neither one of these individuals was the first to mention the LTVP in this thread?

This forum has got a huge problem with basic courtesy, in my view. Goodness knows I try, mightily.

[zegnaangelo]

And that's the answer that SMS and MS have been alluding to.

Would it be "arrogant" to point out that neither one of these individuals was the first to mention the LTVP in this thread?

This forum has got a huge problem with basic courtesy, in my view. Goodness knows I try, mightily.

That could be the solution... however was wondering ho the LTVP work with a wife not working? And the fact I am offshore now? Still possible to apply?

[x9200]

That could be the solution... however was wondering ho the LTVP work with a wife not working? And the fact I am offshore now? Still possible to apply?

Possible to apply, a question mark whether it is going to be granted. The application requires disembarkation card so it appears you should be in Singapore when applying. You would fall under the category of a family visitor so you need to be both in Singapore. On top of this may need to prove you can sustain yourself while living there (as your wife has no income).

[Strong Eagle]

Bottom line: the government itself says it's possible, and the government gets to make the decision.

But you don't know if there are any internal SOPs etc the gov. uses for such decision and the SOPs may say (for example) no PR for such cases until next whatever. In other words even your main claim is unjustified. Using your mechanistic logic the bottom line should be: it is not possible (for you and majority of us) to determine.

If there's anything that can be said for Singapore government, it is not mechanistic. It has its rules and procedures. But, unlike the USA, with its zero tolerance attitude, and adherence to rigid rules, even in the face of overwhelming idiocy, Singapore has a back door, an ability and willingness to consider the merits of the case for any given individual.

Granted, the amount of leeway depends upon the situation... for NS, the leeway is very limited. For many other situations, the Singapore government is actually quite liberal, at least until they discover that their liberalism results in people trying to scam them.

[x9200]

Bottom line: the government itself says it's possible, and the government gets to make the decision.

But you don't know if there are any internal SOPs etc the gov. uses for such decision and the SOPs may say (for example) no PR for such cases until next whatever. In other words even your main claim is unjustified. Using your mechanistic logic the bottom line should be: it is not possible (for you and majority of us) to determine.

If there's anything that can be said for Singapore government, it is not mechanistic.

That's the whole point. It's a soft and flexible approach with the conditions adjusted to specific situation and current political and/or other needs. It can be observed in many areas, not only for the immigration, everyday example - the road traffic, if the gov was here mechanistic the roads would stay empty (for some time at least). What MS/SMS says just falls under the same modus operandi so I am not sure why BBCW is so resistant to give them some credit.

[PNGMK]

And that's the answer that SMS and MS have been alluding to.

Would it be "arrogant" to point out that neither one of these individuals was the first to mention the LTVP in this thread?

This forum has got a huge problem with basic courtesy, in my view. Goodness knows I try, mightily.

No dude. I was referring to the reference about ICA assessing on case by case (as they wish) basis rather than the 'Organic Originalist Constitutionalist' view you were taking....

[JR8]

I keep getting this visual...

[Mad Scientist]

From my limited knowledge and rudeness as BBC has pointed out.

Why I did not suggest LTVP route are as follows

1. The main sponsor must be a SG citizen and have an income in Singapore which she does not. It does not matter if the hubby is earning a $15K . Which means they fail on the first hurdle
2. Secondly you have to be living here on social visit pass and apply for extension for another 60 days and on until a year. This to show proof of ability to support the hubby and the intention to stay in Singapore and ride it out so to speak
3. Thirdly he has renounce his SG citizenship for a greener pasture and his only reason is to use LTVP or PR route for border crossing frequency and reduce its hassles

If I can see this, do you think ICA officer that "GONG" not to see it. They have a 10 year series handbook at all time with them and some of the rules are written by me. Ha !!!!

OP knows when he renounced whatever I said about the documents are true but he still cannot accept the fact the nature of its repercussion and wants it to be blacker than black and whiter than white so that it really stood out. For god sake get a life please !!

About ex SGer getting his Citizenship back that guy was invited not applied. So please big difference !!

If it is so bright in the day why must you shine the torchlight