Can I apply PR without Annex A?

[conan5008]

Hi,
I've got my S pass and working around 8 months in sg.
My realtive ask me to apply PR but My employer doesn't want to fill up the annex A to me. Can I apply PR without Annex A?

[zzm9980]

Why is your relative asking you to do this? Are they Singaporean?

I do not believe Annex A is required; however if you're applying under PTS scheme you'll probably want it filed out. Someone else can correct me if it is actually required.

But honestly in your case? 8 Months on an S-pass? You're probably not going to be approved anyway. Factors which can influence it: Where are you from, how much do you make, are you applying for a family and does your family include male children?

[JR8]

Why is your relative asking you to do this?

Follow the money...

[sundaymorningstaple]

Don't waste your time. Unless you have been here at least two years it will probably be a waste of time. Especially if you are only on an S pass. What have you got to offer Singapore? If you had anything to offer, you would be on at least a P2 or P1 pass.

In answer to your question, I wouldn't sign an Annex A for you either. I do them for my staff but only after they have been with me for two years. Otherwise, I don't bother as I know the majority will leave as soon as they get PR (If they get PR) I haven't had an S pass holder be successful in the past two years by the way. I've had several prior to that and two of them are still with me 3 years later till today. But I haven't had a successful PR application in my company for 2 years now for S pass holders, even with 2 years of service.

[the lynx]

8 months on SPass only? Have you been reading news lately?!
Oh wait, here is the no-brainer question, do you actually read the requirements for PR application in terms of number of years?!

I should agree with the employer NOT to fill up the Annex A for you - though for different reasons.

(Employers usually are hesitant to do so because, like what SMS said, cheap scheming foreigners leaving the employment the moment they receive the PR)

[zzm9980]

Why is your relative asking you to do this?

Follow the money...

I like to hear it from the horse's mouth. Always interesting to see if the reply is obvious lying, or a privileged sense of self-entitlement.

[therat]

I had a vendor who complained to me that his company refused to sign his PR application.
He told me, he cross his heart and give his word to the company. He would not resign once he received his PR. He promise with his soul.

Few mths later, heard that he resign immediate he receive his PR.

[zzm9980]

Eh, that kind of thing doesn't bother me. What is he supposed to do, tell his company: "Well, if I get a better off from a company that will only hire SC or PR, yeah, I'm gone because you guys suck"? If I had to 'beg' my company to do such a thing, I'd be out of there as soon as I could too.

If he's a bad employee, they should let him go. If he's good, they should have compensated better. An employer shouldn't have such control over an employee's life. If the government is willing to give him PR, then so be it. It should be up to them to approve/deny his PR, not the company's.

edit: While I don't fully agree with what SMS said his company does, at least they have a clear cut policy on it that I assume they apply equally to all employees of said class.

[the lynx]

If he's a bad employee, they should let him go. If he's good, they should have compensated better. An employer shouldn't have such control over an employee's life. If the government is willing to give him PR, then so be it. It should be up to them to approve/deny his PR, not the company's.

Ahem. True but still without Annex A, the applicant cannot submit anything...

[sundaymorningstaple]

Not true Lynx.

It helps to have the Annex A but it certainly isn't essential. It used to be but ICA stopped "requiring" it when they found out that certain employers were "using" that requirement in order to keep their employees. This goes back to what I was saying earlier. We will fill out the Annex A once they have completed the initial contract with us (usually 21 to 24 months). That way we get some ROI and they get their PR.

[the lynx]

It used to be but ICA stopped "requiring" it when they found out that certain employers were "using" that requirement in order to keep their employees.

OK I stand corrected.

Still I do not see anything wrong with that... I'd still think that employees should do their bid for their worth in PR application. Otherwise we will keep seeing 'certain' people popping here and demanding why they can't get PR despite of their masters and whatever they fancy.

And one can just submit the application without Annex A? This is something new I've learned...

[sundaymorningstaple]

ICA has realized they can check with the CPF board or IRAS or both to ascertain the validity of employment. This more so now that all the main databases are interconnected primarily for ICA.

Having said that, it is still better to have the Annex A as it's a pretty good sign to ICA that the company isn't about the release the individual.

[the lynx]

ICA has realized they can check with the CPF board or IRAS or both to ascertain the validity of employment. This more so now that all the main databases are interconnected primarily for ICA.

Now it all makes sense!

Meanwhile...

[sundaymorningstaple]

I was waiting for Mr. Bean to fall into the circle of light!

[Mi Amigo]

I had a vendor who complained to me that his company refused to sign his PR application.
He told me, he cross his heart and give his word to the company. He would not resign once he received his PR. He promise with his soul.

Few mths later, heard that he resign immediate he receive his PR.

Eh, that kind of thing doesn't bother me. What is he supposed to do, tell his company: "Well, if I get a better off from a company that will only hire SC or PR, yeah, I'm gone because you guys suck"? If I had to 'beg' my company to do such a thing, I'd be out of there as soon as I could too.

I think it's a question of all parties being reasonable and fair (an old fashioned concept, I know). If the employee and employer make a gentleman's agreement and the employee later breaks that agreement, then self evidently they are not a gentleman (or woman). But by equal measure the company should not attempt to hold the employee 'hostage' in an unreasonable manner. FWIW I think the policy that SMS follows meets the 'reasonable and fair' test, and everyone knows where they stand.