We're digressing a bit here, but what the heck.PNGMK wrote:On a more conciliatory note there is a gap in my opinion in the range of visa and permits available in Singapore.
Let's assume there are "gaps." That doesn't mean an individual gets to violate the law to fill those gaps. "There was no suitable visa for me" isn't a viable defense. There might be a political or policy argument but only that. A foreigner has a perfectly viable alternative option: stay out. (Excepting legitimate refugees, at real risk of personal harm, seeking asylum -- a situation Singapore and many other countries do not handle well, in my view.)
Singapore offers the Miscellaneous Work Pass for religious workers and others. True, it's limited to 60 days. There is no particular obstacle to religious and charitable workers applying for EPs and S Passes for longer term stays, but there are income minimums (S$2200/month minimum for an S Pass). I don't think it's unreasonable to require income minimums, especially for longer-term stays, and S$2200/month is not a high income in Singapore these days. Also, as long as it isn't compulsory or a condition of employment, the worker is free to donate surplus salary back, voluntarily. Moreover, I'm not enthusiastic about governments discriminating either against or in favor of religious organizations and their members. "Oh, she's going to pray a lot" doesn't strike me as a terrifically strong argument for making an income minimum exception.1. A religious and charitable workers visa that allows long term residency without a high income as a priest, pastor, nun, temple worker, missionary etc. Similar to the R-1 in the USA.
Some countries are experimenting with visitors and immigrants posting bonds (or having bonds posted for them). Maybe that could work here, but "be careful what you wish for."
I cannot think of any country that guarantees the admissibility of any foreigner. It's a basic security function of a functioning state. Businesses that don't want to take such risks have a very simple and very effective solution: find a resident worker. But there is always a risk of being denied entry when a foreigner crosses a border. There has to be if you're going to have controlled national borders.2. A better form of 'multi-entry business activities visa' that proactively permits business visits as per the OP and doesn't rely on the approval at landing in the airport.
That said, I've never heard of businesses complaining about Singapore in particular. ICA seems to do its job quite well, and legitimate businesses understand the rules well. In fact, many businesses hire visa compliance specialist firms to help them stay well within bounds. Singapore's system of In-Principle Approval (IPA) letters is also much better than what most countries offer.
I'm not sure what you have in mind here. ICA already allows PRs to sponsor STVP extensions up to 90 days (for practically anybody, including second cousins), and it's simple to file for an extension online (e-XTEND). The United States (a comparison you drew earlier) doesn't allow its permanent residents to sponsor parents (or in-laws) for immigration into the United States at all. They have to become citizens to do that (and still not for in-laws), and then there's a decade or so wait (for parents) until a family preference visa number becomes available. Even spouses of citizens have to wait a year or so to get into the U.S. I don't think it's in the Singapore government's interest to relocate entire villages, yet Singapore offers something closer to that with its LTVP than the U.S. does. Sure, there's an income requirement to sponsor anybody for immigration, but that's sensible and logical, isn't it?3. Some leeway on LTVP for relatives (in laws, mothers, fathers) of PR's. This is becoming a bit of a personal sore point for me as my mother gets older and I know is a major issue for other families.
If you're a PR you can sponsor your mother for a LTVP. They're generally decided fairly quickly (within a couple months), and overall approval rates are over 80 percent according to the government. You'll need to demonstrate adequate financial means, as you should if you're going to bring an elderly parent into the country. I can't argue with that. (The U.S. is more strict here and requires that sponsors formally commit, contractually and legally, to make the government whole if the immigrant becomes a burden to the state.)
