STVP extension

[abcx12]

Last year my parents visited and their return tickets was checked before entering Singapore..and they were on "sponsored" visa...so my guess is that it varies from case to case and depends on the official at that point of time..so better to not take risk..
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?

[ecureilx]

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.

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.

Of course, if you hold a US Passport (like BBCWatcher) or a Western Passport, the likelihood of this happening is Zero.

Too complicated, and too much to explain, so for the time being, let's follow BBCWs advice - just bring any ticket. Maybe a bus ticket to Malaysia ? Or a Ferry ticket to Batam ? Yes, All of it should work. No worries.

[ecureilx]

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?

If you renew online, it used to be 30 days from the expiry of the previous visa.

If you renewed over the counter, it used to be 30 days from the date of renewal, i.e 30 days from the date the extension was stamped.

[x9200]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

Nope, same same.

When immigration returns the passenger to the airline that flew them in, they expect the airline to fly them back to where they came from. That was/is the SOP. Not where the passenger has his or her onward ticket. Or if the onward ticket is to go to another terminal or even another city, and take another airline, all of that won't fly, especially in this part of the world, and again, holding an Asian Passport. That immigration can escort the passenger etc is irrelevant.

Hence, as I said, the refusal of some airlines to even board passengers who don't have return ticket, back home, or ask to prove they have residency in the third country, if they have onward ticket to a third country.

PS, in the late 80's and 90's, this issue was very common in European Airports too.

[BBCWatcher]

Too complicated, and too much to explain, so for the time being, let's follow BBCWs advice - just bring any ticket.

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.

If I understand your recommendation correctly, you are pointing out that, on average, Indian passport holders are denied entry into Singapore in greater percentages than, say, U.S. passport holders. Let's assume that's true, and I think that's a fair assumption. Given that statistical average, Indian passport holders may wish to give greater consideration to having a prearranged, preferred "Plan B" if they're denied entry. Every foreigner should have a "Plan B," but Indian passport holders might want to pay some greater attention to their alternative plans, such as having a return ticket to India.

That said, nationality is only one factor among many that ICA considers. For example, if you're Mukesh Ambani (MD of Reliance Industries), ICA might not be too worried about your return or onward ticket.

I can agree with all that, if that's what you were trying to say.

With respect to airlines and their hesitations, U.S. passport holders confront those realities, too. (I can vouch for that, personally.) One way to address such issues is to be prepared to purchase a "suitable" ticket at the airport. Preferably a refundable one. That may not be easy if you're credit constrained, but neither is travel to Singapore.

[x9200]

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.

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.

[ecureilx]

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.

Going by that logic, no airline can even allow those with visa on arrival to board Seriously. A visa on arrival is not given until the person has satisfied the immigration that he is a tourist And I know cases, not in Changi, but elsewhere, where the suspicous airline called the corresponding country station to try to check if the passenger's residency was valid, and when they couldn't validate it on time, the passenger was offloaded- wrongly.

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.

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.

[abcx12]

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?

[x9200]

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?

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.

For the ICA officer it is going to be painfully obvious that you do a visa run and although ICA tolerates it to some degree, they don't like it. This basically means you may be just given a day or two so you can departure via Changi Airport, or if they don't like you for some reason, you may be refused the entry. How likely is this to happen for a single visa run, probably unlikely, but you should be aware of such risk.
If you want to mitigate this risk, you may want to consider leaving Singapore for 4-5 days.

[ecureilx]

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.

If you come today and go to Malaysia tomorrow, the 30 day visa has expired.

The next visa period on your arrival, as X9200 said, is up to the ICA officer.

[x9200]

No offense taken Ecu, good you made clear the other part.