Singapore Expats Forum

Can an Ex-PR regain PR status?

Relocating, travelling or planning to make Singapore home? Discuss the criterias, passes or visa that is required.
offshoreoildude
Manager
Manager
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed, 04 Jul 2012

Postby offshoreoildude » Sun, 23 Dec 2012 8:12 pm

RonnieNolan wrote:
offshoreoildude wrote:You don't need PR. You need a pass to do what you want. That should be possible (Entre pass etc)...


Thank you, I've known about that. It's just that a PR status makes things more convenient. As an ex-PR, I don't believe I can work, study, etc in Singapore (is what I was told to be the penalty). This means that the legality of say, direct property ownership - even as a foreigner - is in question. And only obtaining a PR for the second time can dispel that issue once and for all.

Take for example, obtaining an Entrepass to work and buying a condo. These are two separate actions. If, as another poster mentioned above, that the law is vague and the government has a great scope to act (and therefore judge each proposal on their own merit), I might find myself in a situation where I can get one (Entrepass to work or purchase a condo) but not the other. The only way to ease this out and provide the legal certainty I need, so that I can work and buy property as and when I want, is to obtain a PR. That is to say, its the clearest way of dispelling the penalties for an ex-PR, or getting out of the "blacklist".


I think you're over reacting. This government - although it has changed a few things - is far too acutely conscious of the importance of foreign investment to go and radically change things so quickly as to leave someone try to do what you want in the lurch.
Now I'm called PNGMK

offshoreoildude
Manager
Manager
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed, 04 Jul 2012

Postby offshoreoildude » Sun, 23 Dec 2012 8:16 pm

sundaymorningstaple wrote:
Wd40 wrote:
sundaymorningstaple wrote:Wd40,

Just curious. At what point would you say the PR to citizenship route is NOT always what the Government has in mind? If there is one, that is. Do you think there is one?


I would say that not all PRs are "eligible" to become citizens, in the gahmen's eyes, in the same way that not all foreigners are eligible to be PRs.

Apart from that I am unable to see any special circumstance/situation which would make a PR unfavourable for citizenship conversion.

But you know there was a proposal some time back to force some 50K PRs to forcibly convert to citizens. Not sure what the progress on that one is. But that clearly shows they want PRs to become citizens, at least the good quality ones.


That proposal is still being bandied about and I have a feeling that it's going to come to fruition. The key here was the comment from the minister involved that long term PR's like myself who are sitting around the 20 year mark are/will be exempted from the pogrom. The reason? Most of the real "long-term" PR's, myself included, have gotten our PR via the Family Ties Scheme and have Singaporean wives, children, and multi-level families here. Here they could run into trouble with citizens with PR spouses. I, for one, would never give up my citizenship as it's my birthright. However, if Singapore, like my country, allowed or "accepted" the fact of dual citizenship, I would take up Singapore citizenship in a flash, even though I'm already old enough to retire. But I doubt very seriously that they would give me citizenship at this point even though I'll be allowed to stay as a PR as long as I want. But most of these types are under the Family Ties scheme and not the PTS scheme. These are the ones who will be put to the test as they are the ones who are potentially abusing the system.


Very true SMS. As I posted sometime back... "Why can't I sell my PR?".
Now I'm called PNGMK

User avatar
zzm9980
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6842
Joined: Wed, 06 Jul 2011
Location: Once more unto the breach

Postby zzm9980 » Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:53 pm

Wd40 wrote:
It is a known fact that Caucasians who take up PR more often than not dont take up citizenship which is the reason why it's harder now for a Caucasian to get PR than an Indian. There is enough evidence of this on this board.


Known by who? The plural of anecdote is not evidence, and all this board contains is anecdotes. Even then, multiple searches do not show me very many caucasians complaining about not making PR vs Indians (even with P1 salaries and male heirs) getting denied. Maybe they all did what you did and went and erased all their posts?

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9318
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:14 pm

Besides, there is a difference between using PR as a stepping stone or just opportunistically to provide better quality of life and using it as the end of the line because of the law. I am very sure the government sees this different too so I really doubt the Caucasian are more stigmatized than Indians.

RonnieNolan
Member
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat, 22 Dec 2012
Location: Bekasi, West Java, Indonesia

Postby RonnieNolan » Mon, 24 Dec 2012 1:33 am

x9200 wrote:
RonnieNolan wrote:
x9200 wrote:
RonnieNolan wrote:As for NS, as I've mentioned countless times before, it's non-negotiable for me. I cannot give up my Indonesian citizenship since it offers plenty of perks that foreign nationals can never obtain.

As for many countries having this sort of restrictions there is often a legal way to serve in a foreign army. Not possible for Indonesia?


Nope, the citizenship law is very clear on that.

Interesting, as far as I can see this very citizenship law also says what to do to stay legal. It took me 5 min to google out the relevant law (Article 3, Regulations 12/2006) and this is probably not the only way. Knowing a bit MS from this board I don't expect him doing anything illegal.


Actually, what you would want is Legislation no. 12/2006, Chapter 4, Article 23 which states that (and this is a rough translation):

An Indonesian citizen will lose his citizenship if the concerned party has:
a. Obtained a foreign citizenship of his own accord.
b. Does not object to or abolish a foreign citizenship/nationality while the concerned party has the chance.
c. Is declared by the President to have lost his citizenship of his own request, and that the concerned party is at least 18 y/o and married, is domiciled in a foreign country, and that the declaration of his lost of Indonesian citizenship does not leave him stateless.
d. Is serving for/in a foreign military without prior approval from the President.
e. Voluntarily entered into the service of a foreign government institution, of which position within a similar institution in Indonesia, by Indonesian law may only be staffed by an Indonesian citizen.
f. Voluntarily made a pledge or an oath of loyalty/service to a foreign country/nation/state or to any subdivision of it.
g. Is obligated to but voluntarily chose to participate in an election that is characterized as nationalistic(?) (no direct contextual translation, but its something that has to do with the state business of) a foreign country.
h. Possess a passport or document that serves as or in the capacity of a passport of a foreign country, which can be interpreted as proof of foreign nationality or:
i. Live outside the territory of the Republic of Indonesia for 5 years continuously, while not on state business, without acceptable reason knowingly did not state a desire to remain an Indonesian citizen (to the relevant authorities) before the 5-year term has ended, and for every 5 years therein did not make a statement of intent to remain an Indonesian citizen to the Indonesian Representative Office (embassy, consulate, etc) of which area/territory of responsibility covers the concerned party's residence while the Indonesian Representative Office had submitted a written reminder, and that enacting this clause does not leave the concerned party stateless.

As can be seen, clauses d, e and f are the problems that NS in Singapore is in contact with. While the next article, Article 24 gives leeway to Article 23/Clause D, Articles 28, 29 and 30 gives the government and certain government institutions the power to challenge this (Article 24). Additionally, Article 24 only gave leeway for Clause D of Article 23 and does not cover Clause E and F of which National Service in Singapore can be interpreted as infringing.

What this means is that at best, an Indonesian that has served NS in Singapore is in a grey area. He will find himself in a weak legal position. And as I have mentioned in an earlier post, if I agree or had agreed to serving NS (which brings up its own questions of beneficial use of time) and in the future an attentive bureaucrat looks into my records, I could have a legal case on my table. Not to mention that for any Indonesian who intends to serve the public good by representing their aspirations in office, this is equal to suicide as doubtless, anyone trying to run will have to get a background check (and receive at least the scrutiny of the local media, at most this means the national media). In fact, just the fact that I've lived for a decade in Singapore (which many Indonesian consider to be a safe haven for its corrupt officials) can already be used against me as a point of my unsuitability to represent and detachment from the common people (most Indonesians have never left their country). Even if I can successfully win the legal battle (for serving NS), which would have exhausted a lot of cash (court battles cost time and money), the position of having served in a foreign military is indefensible in Indonesian politics.

My mom, who had a Masters of (Indonesian) Law, always told me that I must never put myself in a weak legal position. People in such a position will be left vulnerable, and corrupt officials can use it as a reason to shake them down for all their worth. However, as long as I am in a strong legal position, no official, good or bad, can have any reason to pressure me (regardless of how much they might want to). That is why I have been safe and I intend to keep it that way.
Those who tell you money can't buy everything don't know where to shop. - Abraham Lincoln

RonnieNolan
Member
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat, 22 Dec 2012
Location: Bekasi, West Java, Indonesia

Postby RonnieNolan » Mon, 24 Dec 2012 1:45 am

taxico wrote:i had so much that is caustic to say, but my opinion is that, a seemingly well read and (i assume) educated "young indonesian businessman" should be able to figure out how indonesians can serve NS in singapore without running foul of any laws, or at the very least, figure out the possibility of re-gaining PR.

FWIW, someone said an 8 figure investment amount might do the trick. i think that figure, if it is truly 8 figures, would best not start with 1 or 2 or 3 or 4.


I'm not well-read in Singapore laws, if that's what you mean. Understanding Indonesian law and its political process is a basic requirement to jumping into the Indonesian business world and the obligation of citizenship.
Those who tell you money can't buy everything don't know where to shop. - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9318
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Mon, 24 Dec 2012 9:03 am

RonnieNolan wrote:
x9200 wrote:
RonnieNolan wrote:
x9200 wrote:
RonnieNolan wrote:As for NS, as I've mentioned countless times before, it's non-negotiable for me. I cannot give up my Indonesian citizenship since it offers plenty of perks that foreign nationals can never obtain.

As for many countries having this sort of restrictions there is often a legal way to serve in a foreign army. Not possible for Indonesia?


Nope, the citizenship law is very clear on that.

Interesting, as far as I can see this very citizenship law also says what to do to stay legal. It took me 5 min to google out the relevant law (Article 3, Regulations 12/2006) and this is probably not the only way. Knowing a bit MS from this board I don't expect him doing anything illegal.


Actually, what you would want is Legislation no. 12/2006, Chapter 4, Article 23 which states that (and this is a rough translation):

An Indonesian citizen will lose his citizenship if the concerned party has:
a. Obtained a foreign citizenship of his own accord.
b. Does not object to or abolish a foreign citizenship/nationality while the concerned party has the chance.
c. Is declared by the President to have lost his citizenship of his own request, and that the concerned party is at least 18 y/o and married, is domiciled in a foreign country, and that the declaration of his lost of Indonesian citizenship does not leave him stateless.
d. Is serving for/in a foreign military without prior approval from the President.
e. Voluntarily entered into the service of a foreign government institution, of which position within a similar institution in Indonesia, by Indonesian law may only be staffed by an Indonesian citizen.
f. Voluntarily made a pledge or an oath of loyalty/service to a foreign country/nation/state or to any subdivision of it.
g. Is obligated to but voluntarily chose to participate in an election that is characterized as nationalistic(?) (no direct contextual translation, but its something that has to do with the state business of) a foreign country.
h. Possess a passport or document that serves as or in the capacity of a passport of a foreign country, which can be interpreted as proof of foreign nationality or:
i. Live outside the territory of the Republic of Indonesia for 5 years continuously, while not on state business, without acceptable reason knowingly did not state a desire to remain an Indonesian citizen (to the relevant authorities) before the 5-year term has ended, and for every 5 years therein did not make a statement of intent to remain an Indonesian citizen to the Indonesian Representative Office (embassy, consulate, etc) of which area/territory of responsibility covers the concerned party's residence while the Indonesian Representative Office had submitted a written reminder, and that enacting this clause does not leave the concerned party stateless.

As can be seen, clauses d, e and f are the problems that NS in Singapore is in contact with. While the next article, Article 24 gives leeway to Article 23/Clause D, Articles 28, 29 and 30 gives the government and certain government institutions the power to challenge this (Article 24). Additionally, Article 24 only gave leeway for Clause D of Article 23 and does not cover Clause E and F of which National Service in Singapore can be interpreted as infringing.

What this means is that at best, an Indonesian that has served NS in Singapore is in a grey area. He will find himself in a weak legal position. And as I have mentioned in an earlier post, if I agree or had agreed to serving NS (which brings up its own questions of beneficial use of time) and in the future an attentive bureaucrat looks into my records, I could have a legal case on my table. Not to mention that for any Indonesian who intends to serve the public good by representing their aspirations in office, this is equal to suicide as doubtless, anyone trying to run will have to get a background check (and receive at least the scrutiny of the local media, at most this means the national media). In fact, just the fact that I've lived for a decade in Singapore (which many Indonesian consider to be a safe haven for its corrupt officials) can already be used against me as a point of my unsuitability to represent and detachment from the common people (most Indonesians have never left their country). Even if I can successfully win the legal battle (for serving NS), which would have exhausted a lot of cash (court battles cost time and money), the position of having served in a foreign military is indefensible in Indonesian politics.

My mom, who had a Masters of (Indonesian) Law, always told me that I must never put myself in a weak legal position. People in such a position will be left vulnerable, and corrupt officials can use it as a reason to shake them down for all their worth. However, as long as I am in a strong legal position, no official, good or bad, can have any reason to pressure me (regardless of how much they might want to). That is why I have been safe and I intend to keep it that way.


I'm impressed as only few hours ago you said it was not possible and that there were no legal instruments to do this and now with a bit of stimuli you quoted the non-existing law and provided a different explanation. The only thing I still don't get is why so much effort on your side to convince the members of this forum that you are right?

User avatar
v4jr4
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 887
Joined: Mon, 09 Jul 2012
Location: Chocolate Factory

Postby v4jr4 » Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:43 am

x9200 wrote:I'm impressed as only few hours ago you said it was not possible and that there were no legal instruments to do this and now with a bit of stimuli you quoted the non-existing law and provided a different explanation. The only thing I still don't get is why so much effort on your side to convince the members of this forum that you are right?


In short, for OP: business is good, but I don't want tit-for-tat.
"Budget Expat"

RonnieNolan
Member
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat, 22 Dec 2012
Location: Bekasi, West Java, Indonesia

Postby RonnieNolan » Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:47 am

x9200 wrote:
RonnieNolan wrote:
x9200 wrote:
RonnieNolan wrote:
x9200 wrote:
RonnieNolan wrote:As for NS, as I've mentioned countless times before, it's non-negotiable for me. I cannot give up my Indonesian citizenship since it offers plenty of perks that foreign nationals can never obtain.

As for many countries having this sort of restrictions there is often a legal way to serve in a foreign army. Not possible for Indonesia?


Nope, the citizenship law is very clear on that.

Interesting, as far as I can see this very citizenship law also says what to do to stay legal. It took me 5 min to google out the relevant law (Article 3, Regulations 12/2006) and this is probably not the only way. Knowing a bit MS from this board I don't expect him doing anything illegal.


Actually, what you would want is Legislation no. 12/2006, Chapter 4, Article 23 which states that (and this is a rough translation):

An Indonesian citizen will lose his citizenship if the concerned party has:
a. Obtained a foreign citizenship of his own accord.
b. Does not object to or abolish a foreign citizenship/nationality while the concerned party has the chance.
c. Is declared by the President to have lost his citizenship of his own request, and that the concerned party is at least 18 y/o and married, is domiciled in a foreign country, and that the declaration of his lost of Indonesian citizenship does not leave him stateless.
d. Is serving for/in a foreign military without prior approval from the President.
e. Voluntarily entered into the service of a foreign government institution, of which position within a similar institution in Indonesia, by Indonesian law may only be staffed by an Indonesian citizen.
f. Voluntarily made a pledge or an oath of loyalty/service to a foreign country/nation/state or to any subdivision of it.
g. Is obligated to but voluntarily chose to participate in an election that is characterized as nationalistic(?) (no direct contextual translation, but its something that has to do with the state business of) a foreign country.
h. Possess a passport or document that serves as or in the capacity of a passport of a foreign country, which can be interpreted as proof of foreign nationality or:
i. Live outside the territory of the Republic of Indonesia for 5 years continuously, while not on state business, without acceptable reason knowingly did not state a desire to remain an Indonesian citizen (to the relevant authorities) before the 5-year term has ended, and for every 5 years therein did not make a statement of intent to remain an Indonesian citizen to the Indonesian Representative Office (embassy, consulate, etc) of which area/territory of responsibility covers the concerned party's residence while the Indonesian Representative Office had submitted a written reminder, and that enacting this clause does not leave the concerned party stateless.

As can be seen, clauses d, e and f are the problems that NS in Singapore is in contact with. While the next article, Article 24 gives leeway to Article 23/Clause D, Articles 28, 29 and 30 gives the government and certain government institutions the power to challenge this (Article 24). Additionally, Article 24 only gave leeway for Clause D of Article 23 and does not cover Clause E and F of which National Service in Singapore can be interpreted as infringing.

What this means is that at best, an Indonesian that has served NS in Singapore is in a grey area. He will find himself in a weak legal position. And as I have mentioned in an earlier post, if I agree or had agreed to serving NS (which brings up its own questions of beneficial use of time) and in the future an attentive bureaucrat looks into my records, I could have a legal case on my table. Not to mention that for any Indonesian who intends to serve the public good by representing their aspirations in office, this is equal to suicide as doubtless, anyone trying to run will have to get a background check (and receive at least the scrutiny of the local media, at most this means the national media). In fact, just the fact that I've lived for a decade in Singapore (which many Indonesian consider to be a safe haven for its corrupt officials) can already be used against me as a point of my unsuitability to represent and detachment from the common people (most Indonesians have never left their country). Even if I can successfully win the legal battle (for serving NS), which would have exhausted a lot of cash (court battles cost time and money), the position of having served in a foreign military is indefensible in Indonesian politics.

My mom, who had a Masters of (Indonesian) Law, always told me that I must never put myself in a weak legal position. People in such a position will be left vulnerable, and corrupt officials can use it as a reason to shake them down for all their worth. However, as long as I am in a strong legal position, no official, good or bad, can have any reason to pressure me (regardless of how much they might want to). That is why I have been safe and I intend to keep it that way.


I'm impressed as only few hours ago you said it was not possible and that there were no legal instruments to do this and now with a bit of stimuli you quoted the non-existing law and provided a different explanation. The only thing I still don't get is why so much effort on your side to convince the members of this forum that you are right?


It is still not possible from a legal perspective. Especially not in my case where there's a greater chance of scrutiny. Or are we not reading the same thing here?

I'm responding to you because you've mentioned the wrong article, Article 3 is part of Chapter 1, which just explains the scope and function of the legislation. As this is an open forum, there are bound to be plenty of people who will read it. So, it will be unfortunate if they mistake the content of the law. Is correcting that wrong? :?
Those who tell you money can't buy everything don't know where to shop. - Abraham Lincoln

RonnieNolan
Member
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat, 22 Dec 2012
Location: Bekasi, West Java, Indonesia

Postby RonnieNolan » Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:08 am

v4jr4 wrote:
x9200 wrote:I'm impressed as only few hours ago you said it was not possible and that there were no legal instruments to do this and now with a bit of stimuli you quoted the non-existing law and provided a different explanation. The only thing I still don't get is why so much effort on your side to convince the members of this forum that you are right?


In short, for OP: business is good, but I don't want tit-for-tat.


:???: :???: :???:

Care to clarify? That statement's pretty confusing, cause I do want tit-for-tat (I'm assuming that you mean "a fair exchange" by that phrase).
Those who tell you money can't buy everything don't know where to shop. - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
v4jr4
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 887
Joined: Mon, 09 Jul 2012
Location: Chocolate Factory

Postby v4jr4 » Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:20 am

RonnieNolan wrote:
v4jr4 wrote:
x9200 wrote:I'm impressed as only few hours ago you said it was not possible and that there were no legal instruments to do this and now with a bit of stimuli you quoted the non-existing law and provided a different explanation. The only thing I still don't get is why so much effort on your side to convince the members of this forum that you are right?


In short, for OP: business is good, but I don't want tit-for-tat.


:???: :???: :???:

Care to clarify? That statement's pretty confusing, cause I do want tit-for-tat (I'm assuming that you mean "a fair exchange" by that phrase).


RonnieNolan wrote:That said, business has been doing well and I am taking a second look at Singapore's place in my future plans and that of my business. I've been wondering if there is a way to regain the Singapore Permanent Residency (without serving NS). I was a second-generation PR, which was why I was liable for NS. If I have my parents revoke their PR status, since they don't exactly need it, can I apply for a PR as a first-generation?

Years back, when I received a Singapore citizenship offer (and I opt for PR), I was the first in my family and was counted as a first-generation and therefore not liable for NS. However, once my parents followed suit, my status changed to second-gen and my plans had to change since the NS obligation essentially boils down to whether I should choose to remain an Indonesian or become a Singaporean. I chose the former. Any businessman that had done business in Singapore and Indonesia would tell you that it is far easier to be an Indonesian businessman, doing business in Indonesia and Singapore than to be a Singaporean businessman doing business in Singapore and Indonesia.


Look. You have a business, want to get the PR status, but you don't want to take the offer (including the possibilities of NS) cause you'll be used up by the corrupted "rats" cause by serving NS will put you in weak position. Let me ask you this: by getting PR status, where do you want to settle? Singapore for good, or Indonesia for good? Pick one. Using Singapore as a stepping stone is not a good idea, just because being a PR will make your business smooth.

If you're willing to be bounded by Singapore, take whatever Singapore gave, including NS if you have to.

And to clarify, how old are you?
"Budget Expat"

RonnieNolan
Member
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat, 22 Dec 2012
Location: Bekasi, West Java, Indonesia

Postby RonnieNolan » Mon, 24 Dec 2012 12:39 pm

v4jr4 wrote:
RonnieNolan wrote:
v4jr4 wrote:
x9200 wrote:I'm impressed as only few hours ago you said it was not possible and that there were no legal instruments to do this and now with a bit of stimuli you quoted the non-existing law and provided a different explanation. The only thing I still don't get is why so much effort on your side to convince the members of this forum that you are right?


In short, for OP: business is good, but I don't want tit-for-tat.


:???: :???: :???:

Care to clarify? That statement's pretty confusing, cause I do want tit-for-tat (I'm assuming that you mean "a fair exchange" by that phrase).


RonnieNolan wrote:That said, business has been doing well and I am taking a second look at Singapore's place in my future plans and that of my business. I've been wondering if there is a way to regain the Singapore Permanent Residency (without serving NS). I was a second-generation PR, which was why I was liable for NS. If I have my parents revoke their PR status, since they don't exactly need it, can I apply for a PR as a first-generation?

Years back, when I received a Singapore citizenship offer (and I opt for PR), I was the first in my family and was counted as a first-generation and therefore not liable for NS. However, once my parents followed suit, my status changed to second-gen and my plans had to change since the NS obligation essentially boils down to whether I should choose to remain an Indonesian or become a Singaporean. I chose the former. Any businessman that had done business in Singapore and Indonesia would tell you that it is far easier to be an Indonesian businessman, doing business in Indonesia and Singapore than to be a Singaporean businessman doing business in Singapore and Indonesia.


Look. You have a business, want to get the PR status, but you don't want to take the offer (including the possibilities of NS) cause you'll be used up by the corrupted "rats" cause by serving NS will put you in weak position. Let me ask you this: by getting PR status, where do you want to settle? Singapore for good, or Indonesia for good? Pick one. Using Singapore as a stepping stone is not a good idea, just because being a PR will make your business smooth.

If you're willing to be bounded by Singapore, take whatever Singapore gave, including NS if you have to.

And to clarify, how old are you?


Well, I do want an SPR. As for where I want to settle, it's pretty much wherever my business takes me. Over the next five years at least, its very likely that the majority of my business interests will remain in Indonesia since I'm seeing that there's plenty of opportunity for expansion here. So I'm very likely to stay in Indonesia the majority of the time.

However, Singapore offers opportunities to reduce the tax exposure of such offshore operations (offshore of Singapore), especially when pre-taxed profits has exceeded S$577,000 (current exchange rate estimate). Earnings above that number is not subject to the 50% tax exemption for SMEs in Indonesia (SMEs are generally, legally recognized as earning below that). Additionally, there are more tax exemptions and allowances in Singapore than other ASEAN countries, and covers a broader range of sectors. In the future, it will, of course, be more economical to move the profits to the Cayman Islands or Bermuda which offers more lucrative rates, but that does not mean my businesses will leave Singapore, since at the very least the international business units can still facilitate transfers from Southeast Asian operations (and thus continue to employ people), not to mention those that will cater to the domestic market. Of course, I will still have to clarify with tax planners since I'm sure there's a few legal trappings to doing that, perhaps requirements to go through a 3rd country.

Additionally, while small, Singapore's domestic market is very well-off, with high income per-capita. And I see it as the most Westernized Asian market, which can offer a useful case study. So if my products and services are received well in Singapore, it could bode well for their performance in other OECD countries excluding Japan (which has a high barrier to entry and stringent non-tariff barriers to exports :x ).

While I have no intention to directly control operations in Singapore, I will still need to be physically present in the city-state from time to time to conduct meetings with my managers and/or other businessmen. For such occasions, it would be more convenient to have my own condo and drive my own car.

As for what price I have to pay to get the PR back, I'm still exploring it. But a check over some forums yesterday yielded some useful information. One is that there is possibly good chance an ex-PR can get it back. Essentially, there was a statement (which I remember to be similar to the ICA memo I received long ago), that relinquishing a PR status will become a consideration for when the concerned party wants to apply for various permits including the reinstatement of the SPR. This meant that they are not closing any doors. So to the guy who mentioned on page 1 that they are intentionally leaving it vague to allow for greater scope of interpretation, thanks.

As for the guys saying that I need to invest 8-digit figures in government approved schemes, seems that Singapore government officials are more rational since its only S$1.5 million. This is reasonable and can be corroborated by the fact that most of the 18,000 Indonesian millionaires in Singapore (most of whom are PR) are not ultra high-net worth. This means their assets (excluding primary residence) must be in the 7 and low 8-digits. So that's one digit less. Still, not sure how they will consider the case for Ex-PR so I might need some professional advice the next time I'm in Singapore.

Entrepass seems to be easy enough to obtain since one only need to invest $50,000 in businesses that the locals wouldn't normally do (ie. hawker center, geomancy, chinese medicine etc). But it has limited application outside of day-to-day work, so I won't likely have any use for this :-| .

As for my age, I'm currently 20+. Thanks for the guys answering the questions. Although some of you didn't answer directly, it did help to narrow my searches.

P.S. I have no intention to use Singapore as a stepping stone. I'm happy with my Indonesian nationality. Singapore is a good place to do business, why would I want to leave it and move my businesses (well, the Singapore units) elsewhere? That doesn't even make any sense, IMHO. Also your statement that its not a good idea to be a PR even though being "a PR will make your business smooth" also does not make sense. Isn't that exactly why its a good idea?
Those who tell you money can't buy everything don't know where to shop. - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
v4jr4
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 887
Joined: Mon, 09 Jul 2012
Location: Chocolate Factory

Postby v4jr4 » Mon, 24 Dec 2012 1:19 pm

RonnieNolan wrote:As for my age, I'm currently 20+. Thanks for the guys answering the questions. Although some of you didn't answer directly, it did help to narrow my searches.

P.S. I have no intention to use Singapore as a stepping stone. I'm happy with my Indonesian nationality. Singapore is a good place to do business, why would I want to leave it and move my businesses (well, the Singapore units) elsewhere? That doesn't even make any sense, IMHO. Also your statement that its not a good idea to be a PR even though being "a PR will make your business smooth" also does not make sense. Isn't that exactly why its a good idea?


Stick with your green passport then. It's not a good time to get your PR back, since gahmen's trying to make a strict barrier due to a lot of PR abusers.

But still, since you were PR once, respawn is kinda unlikely. Plus, ICA still stated this: Males who are granted Singapore PR, and who were previously Singapore Citizens or Singapore Permanent Residents, are liable to be called up for NS regardless of the type of PR status they have been granted.

PS: the fatal point of this thread is because you stated that you want to avoid NS, even if it's purely for business.
"Budget Expat"

RonnieNolan
Member
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat, 22 Dec 2012
Location: Bekasi, West Java, Indonesia

Postby RonnieNolan » Mon, 24 Dec 2012 1:29 pm

v4jr4 wrote:
RonnieNolan wrote:As for my age, I'm currently 20+. Thanks for the guys answering the questions. Although some of you didn't answer directly, it did help to narrow my searches.

P.S. I have no intention to use Singapore as a stepping stone. I'm happy with my Indonesian nationality. Singapore is a good place to do business, why would I want to leave it and move my businesses (well, the Singapore units) elsewhere? That doesn't even make any sense, IMHO. Also your statement that its not a good idea to be a PR even though being "a PR will make your business smooth" also does not make sense. Isn't that exactly why its a good idea?


Stick with your green passport then. It's not a good time to get your PR back, since gahmen's trying to make a strict barrier due to a lot of PR abusers.

But still, since you were PR once, respawn is kinda unlikely. Plus, ICA still stated this: Males who are granted Singapore PR, and who were previously Singapore Citizens or Singapore Permanent Residents, are liable to be called up for NS regardless of the type of PR status they have been granted.

PS: the fatal point of this thread is because you stated that you want to avoid NS, even if it's purely for business.


I see, thanks for the heads up. I'll still try to see if my lawyer can help, but if I can't, then that's fine as well. Being a foreigner should not bar me from purchasing condos right? Although I'm pretty sure I won't be able to drive.
Those who tell you money can't buy everything don't know where to shop. - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35159
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Mon, 24 Dec 2012 2:39 pm

Give you a little secret......

There is only one thing the ICA hates more than PR abusers.



Lawyers. That's why it's almost impossible to find a lawyer who will represent you as they know as soon as they enter the fray, the client has lost. Full Stop.


But, don't let that stop you. At least when you do, you will be permanently marked.


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “PR, Citizenship, Passes & Visas for Foreigners”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests