SPR REP expired got SVP

[AnandV]

Hi all,
Friend of mine living abroad had SPR, REP expired in 2010. Card still with him. He wanted to be back to Singapore and got SVP last week. He will be flying to Singapore next week to find a job.
Will his SPR be still valid as he didn't surrender it ?

[x9200]

No. SPR is valid with the expired REP only if one does not leave the country.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Unless he's been doing a masters all that time, he's got virtually no chance of keeping his PR. In fact, with the current state of affairs here, I'm pretty sure even asking would be a total waste of time.

[the lynx]

Hi all,
Friend of mine living abroad had SPR, REP expired in 2010. Card still with him. He wanted to be back to Singapore and got SVP last week. He will be flying to Singapore next week to find a job.
Will his SPR be still valid as he didn't surrender it ?

Sorry. Not valid anymore

[sundaymorningstaple]

IN fact, it wouldn't surprise me one bit to find that the gahmen are combing through their combined databases to find all those who took up PR and then boogied off to other countries, figuring they could whiz back here to renew their REP and be off again. Once they find them, which would be reasonably easy, as all they have to do is cross reference those with PR against those with tax assessments for the past 4 years, any that miss a year for no apparent reason, will probably be cancelled or only given a one year REP before sending them on their way. About time I say.

[offshoreoildude]

IN fact, it wouldn't surprise me one bit to find that the gahmen are combing through their combined databases to find all those who took up PR and then boogied off to other countries, figuring they could whiz back here to renew their REP and be off again. Once they find them, which would be reasonably easy, as all they have to do is cross reference those with PR against those with tax assessments for the past 4 years, any that miss a year for no apparent reason, will probably be cancelled or only given a one year REP before sending them on their way. About time I say.

Agreed - and along with that they will be profiling on race/religion and family as well I'm sure. I'm bloody sick to death of temporary PR's.

[revhappy]

IN fact, it wouldn't surprise me one bit to find that the gahmen are combing through their combined databases to find all those who took up PR and then boogied off to other countries, figuring they could whiz back here to renew their REP and be off again. Once they find them, which would be reasonably easy, as all they have to do is cross reference those with PR against those with tax assessments for the past 4 years, any that miss a year for no apparent reason, will probably be cancelled or only given a one year REP before sending them on their way. About time I say.

Agreed - and along with that they will be profiling on race/religion and family as well I'm sure. I'm bloody sick to death of temporary PR's.

Just curious, why is that? I understand, you got yourself PR very early on but didnt really make much use of it. Why would anybody taking up PR temporarily annoy you?

[sundaymorningstaple]

The same damn reason that they annoy me. It's because of the Temporary abusers that all of our subsidies have been reduced. I'd like to see 'em all thrown out as well, truth be known.

[offshoreoildude]

IN fact, it wouldn't surprise me one bit to find that the gahmen are combing through their combined databases to find all those who took up PR and then boogied off to other countries, figuring they could whiz back here to renew their REP and be off again. Once they find them, which would be reasonably easy, as all they have to do is cross reference those with PR against those with tax assessments for the past 4 years, any that miss a year for no apparent reason, will probably be cancelled or only given a one year REP before sending them on their way. About time I say.

Agreed - and along with that they will be profiling on race/religion and family as well I'm sure. I'm bloody sick to death of temporary PR's.

Just curious, why is that? I understand, you got yourself PR very early on but didnt really make much use of it. Why would anybody taking up PR temporarily annoy you?

I've used it pretty much continuously - the largest break was a 2.5 year posting for a Singapore linked company in China.

[revhappy]

The same damn reason that they annoy me. It's because of the Temporary abusers that all of our subsidies have been reduced. I'd like to see 'em all thrown out as well, truth be known.

I dont see a direct link between PR abuse and reduction of subsidies for PRs. The main reason for reduction of subsidies is being done to increase the benefits for citizens in comparison to PRs. I agree that the right way should have been to increase the benefits for citizens and keep the benefits for PRs the same.

[revhappy]

Agreed - and along with that they will be profiling on race/religion and family as well I'm sure. I'm bloody sick to death of temporary PR's.

Just curious, why is that? I understand, you got yourself PR very early on but didnt really make much use of it. Why would anybody taking up PR temporarily annoy you?

I've used it pretty much continuously - the largest break was a 2.5 year posting for a Singapore linked company in China.

When I said, you didnt make much use of it, I was referring to your post in which you said, on highsight you wouldnt have taken PR at all.

[sundaymorningstaple]

The increase of PRs caused the uproar from the citizens. THAT caused the subsidies to be reduced. There was always a difference between citizens and PR, now it even larger due to the abusers who took up PERMANENT RESIDENCE as a medium term VISA only, just in case they lost their jobs. Who you trying to kid? They used it to buy flats to sell at profits after a couple of years until they managed to get their visas to Aus, Can, UK or US. I'll be glad to see the backside of 'em. But I fear the damage has already been done. They haven't done anybody any favours here, that's for damn sure.

[revhappy]

Again I dont see a link. Taken, that increase in the number of PRs caused the uproar. So the decision to increase the number of PRs given was wrong. Lets take a hypothetical example.

Lets say they gave PR to 1 million people from 1990-2000. If none of them abused and all of them stayed, they might have not needed to give any more PRs assuming that their target was 1 million PRs.

Now if everyone abused and quit the country after making profits they need to issue another million PRs in the next decade, just to maintain the balance, everything else being equal.

Now how does this affect anybody? If you talking about the capital gains made by HDB sales, well, what is the proportion of PR sales v/s citizen sales?

Another potential issue is not enough kids for NS, but is this the reason why the uproar is?

Even those who have abused, have contributed here, its just that the cost to the country is high due to the subsidies. But its not like ICA wasnt aware of it, isnt it? They are supposed to one of the smartest immigration officers in the world with best paid salaries so how come they could get it so wrong. Especially when a family applied for PR leaving out their male kids or when someone applies as early as 6 months from landing into the country, you dont need masters to know whether its an abuse or not, isnt it

To me, its just demand and supply, at that point in time, they had to give PRs to keep foreign talent here or they would have jumped to greener shores anyways, now priorities have changed and taking care of citizens is more important and hence the change of strategy.

[x9200]

The changes to PR benefits are due to the politics not the economy and you are talking about economy. There may be no link to the economy (at least it is sufficiently complex not to speculate so easily) but there is a strong link to the politics. If you neglect the later it would be likely exactly like you suggested - no apparent effect.

[revhappy]

Yupp, sorry, shouldnt have used the phrase "demand and supply". Its more like "need of the hour"