Instead of a long reply, if you know somebody in Airline industry do ask them what happens If a passenger from A country is flown in to B country, and the passenger holds an onward ticket to C country, and if the person gets refused entry to B Country, if Immigration in country B will let person go at his convenience to country C or another country D, or if it will be explicitly back to Country A (Where he came from). And there in lies the answer why it is recommended to have a ticket back to your country of origin, especially when you hold an Asian Passport. This happens with regular occurrence, and it happens in other airports too, not unique to Singapore.x9200 wrote:Sorry Ecu, but it sounds hard to believe. I mean, I believe the guy might have been sent back but I am finding very hard to accept the reason for it as you suggested. What would be the logic behind? I will go one step further and say, if the reason was as you said, that would be just plain stupid and very bad practice for the well being of Singapore tourism based part of the economy.
If you renew online, it used to be 30 days from the expiry of the previous visa.abcx12 wrote:One more query....in case of STVP extension for 30 days....is the extension for 30 days from date of application for extension or from the date of expiry of initial 30 days?
But this is something different to what we here discuss. It's what happens after refusal of the entry. What we talk about is if the ticket to country C instead of A could be the reason of ICA refusing the entry. A very different thing. On top of this, you are talking now not about the immigration but the airlines concerns. This is the problem of the airlines not the immigration.ecureilx wrote:Instead of a long reply, if you know somebody in Airline industry do ask them what happens If a passenger from A country is flown in to B country, and the passenger holds an onward ticket to C country, and if the person gets refused entry to B Country, if Immigration in country B will let person go at his convenience to country C or another country D, or if it will be explicitly back to Country A (Where he came from). And there in lies the answer why it is recommended to have a ticket back to your country of origin, especially when you hold an Asian Passport. This happens with regular occurrence, and it happens in other airports too, not unique to Singapore.x9200 wrote:Sorry Ecu, but it sounds hard to believe. I mean, I believe the guy might have been sent back but I am finding very hard to accept the reason for it as you suggested. What would be the logic behind? I will go one step further and say, if the reason was as you said, that would be just plain stupid and very bad practice for the well being of Singapore tourism based part of the economy.
Nope, same same.x9200 wrote:But this is something different to what we here discuss. It's what happens after refusal of the entry. What we talk about is if the ticket to country C instead of A could be the reason of ICA refusing the entry. A very different thing. On top of this, you are talking now not about the immigration but the airlines concerns. This is the problem of the airlines not the immigration.Instead of a long reply, if you know somebody in Airline industry do ask them what happens If a passenger from A country is flown in to B country, and the passenger holds an onward ticket to C country, and if the person gets refused entry to B Country, if Immigration in country B will let person go at his convenience to country C or another country D, or if it will be explicitly back to Country A (Where he came from). And there in lies the answer why it is recommended to have a ticket back to your country of origin, especially when you hold an Asian Passport. This happens with regular occurrence, and it happens in other airports too, not unique to Singapore.
No, let's follow at least ICA's stated requirements and also consider your recommendation, Ecureilx. There is, however, no need to be rude, obnoxious, or sarcastic in expressing your recommendation.ecureilx wrote:Too complicated, and too much to explain, so for the time being, let's follow BBCWs advice - just bring any ticket.
Going by that logic, no airline can even allow those with visa on arrival to boardx9200 wrote:Ecu, I understand this, but again, it's a different case. Nobody is refused any entry yet. Airlines should do their best to determine the chances of the refusal before the departure from country A - if you know somebody from airlines, you probably know they try to do this.
Hence some airlines refusing to even allow Asian Passport holders to board, even now. And despite all that filtering, Each day Changi sees about scores of passengers flown back home by the airline that flew them in. Which is cost to those airlines.x9200 wrote:Besides, if you think about it as a reason for ICA action to refuse the entry it would just make no slightest sense as it would contribute to the problem it allegedly suppose to prevent - in other words, refusing the entry base on C instead of A, would contribute to the airline problems.
Providing you don't need a visa or your visa is for multiple entries your may be granted the maximum period of 30 days again, but then you should also realize it is entirely up to the ICA officer as of how many days within this period will be granted.abcx12 wrote:I have a query regarding STVP….on entry to Singapore you are stamped on your passport to stay for 30 days……within this 30 days period suppose you visit a place outside Singapore for 2 days (e.g. Batam) and come back to Singapore, then on re-entry….is your passport again stamped for further 30 days period stay? Or you have to leave Singapore within the original 30 day period?
No offence to X9200.abcx12 wrote:I have a query regarding STVP….on entry to Singapore you are stamped on your passport to stay for 30 days……within this 30 days period suppose you visit a place outside Singapore for 2 days (e.g. Batam) and come back to Singapore, then on re-entry….is your passport again stamped for further 30 days period stay? Or you have to leave Singapore within the original 30 day period?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests