Singapore Expats Forum

Renounced PR - consequences and outcomes

A moderated forum for serious discussions only.
enemi
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri, 20 Nov 2009
Location: United Kingdom

Renounced PR - consequences and outcomes

Postby enemi » Mon, 29 Apr 2013 2:31 pm

Hi there,

I am a British citizen (born in Hong Kong) that migrated to Singapore with my family at the tender age of 6.

Shortly after our successful migration, our family obtained PR - my father being the 1st gen PR and both my brother and I, being the 2nd gen PRs.

At the age of 15, my parents took the liberty of deciding to send both my brother and I to the UK for studies. According to them, this is due to the fact that in order to be eligible for local fee structure in education within the UK, I will have to be present and living in the UK 3 years before turning 18 in preparation for University.

Therefore, my PR status was renounced and the government informed. It is important to highlight the fact that at that point of time, there was no ruling stating that if you renounce your PR status after 13 years old, there will be significant consequences. (IIRC, you had to inform the government of the decision to renounce PR before 18 years old).

Fast forward 6-7 years, I have completed my Bachelor and Masters studies and was offered a position back in Singapore.

The main point is that, the company applied for a EP work permit so that I can legally work for them, however that was rejected.

They appealed and even got a government body to provide supporting documentation and recommendation to support my employment.

However, this was again, rejected.

It is worth pointing out that the work permit was actually approved by MoM (according to the HR of the company), but apparently Mindef intervened and therefore, my EP was rejected.

My occupation is within the sports industry and with the growing focus of improvement within sports participation in Singapore, I'm baffled as to why my work permit is being rejected on numerous occasions.

Additionally, my qualifications are not attainable in Singapore as there are no institutions that offer the program/course - so it eliminates the reason of hiring locals over foreigners.

It would be lovely if some one could shed some light or share some of their knowledge and experiences with me, as I'm still trying to understand the situation.

Just to add, I'm currently back in the UK - so I'm just trying to get an understanding of why this happened when I was in Singapore.

Sorry for the giant wall of text and thank you in advance for your kind understanding and insight in this matter.

Regards

User avatar
gonzales
Regular
Regular
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat, 24 May 2008
Location: Singapore, Wild West

Postby gonzales » Mon, 29 Apr 2013 2:45 pm

Interesting case.

What did the rejection letters state?

How do you know MinDef were involved?

enemi
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri, 20 Nov 2009
Location: United Kingdom

Postby enemi » Mon, 29 Apr 2013 2:51 pm

Firstly, thank you for the prompt response.

In regards to the reasons for rejection - a reason is usually not provided for rejections, however, we are allowed to appeal the decision.

The HR informed me that following conversation with the case-manager assigned to my application, he found out that it is initially approved by MoM but MINDEF stepped in.

I'm unaware of this being a common circumstance, therefore was wondering if anyone faced the same situation before.

User avatar
gonzales
Regular
Regular
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat, 24 May 2008
Location: Singapore, Wild West

Postby gonzales » Mon, 29 Apr 2013 3:05 pm

If there was no mention of MinDef, I wouldn't be too surprised at an EP rejection as there is a strong sentiment in the country at the moment against increasing the amount of foreign workers across the board.

I think ~40% of the population are foreigners at the moment.

The mention of MinDef suggests a more complex case & more interested parties than might usually be the case. Perhaps your focus on your past is appropriate in this instance.

Good luck with the appeals process.

enemi
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri, 20 Nov 2009
Location: United Kingdom

Postby enemi » Mon, 29 Apr 2013 3:08 pm

Thanks for your input, however, I'm not appealing against my rejection anymore.

I have already settled down elsewhere - was just curious as I never really understood the reasoning behind the rejection.

It's a shame really, as there was a great basis for me to provide a foundation to a major part within sports that is sorely missing within the Singapore industry at the moment.

User avatar
gonzales
Regular
Regular
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat, 24 May 2008
Location: Singapore, Wild West

Postby gonzales » Mon, 29 Apr 2013 3:17 pm

Yea, that's a real pity alright.

You've obviously moved on which is probably the right move.
Move on & forget about that episode...

User avatar
Saint
Director
Director
Posts: 3535
Joined: Thu, 16 Jun 2005
Location: The Juban Stand, Boat Quay
Contact:

Postby Saint » Mon, 29 Apr 2013 4:18 pm

MINDEF would have got involved as they would have seen you as renoucing your PR at 15 as a way of avoiding having to do NS. Unfortunately the decision your parents made when you were 15 will more than likely affect you ever being able to work in Singapore.

I do believe the real reason your parents renounced your PR at 15 was so you could avoid doing NS rather than going to UK to study. You could have still gone back to UK to study at 15 and still kept your Singapore PR.

The Gahmen here have very long memories don't like people trying to pull as fast one especially to avoid doing NS.

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35106
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Mon, 29 Apr 2013 5:30 pm

I didn't see this post earlier, but Saint has said exactly what I would have said as well. At the time you left, you were already past the point of leaving in good graces, e.g., before you were 11. The number 13 came as a result of the biometric passports so it is relatively recently for those contemplating similar acts of self-annihilation regarding any future in Singapore. I reckon your parents have burned your bridges before you ever got a chance to sample the delights of Singapore as anything more than a visitor. (Unless you are a well know neurosurgeon or some such.

enemi
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri, 20 Nov 2009
Location: United Kingdom

Postby enemi » Wed, 01 May 2013 7:33 am

Thanks for the response guys, point noted.

I have actually been visiting Singapore quite regularly - although it's a shame that a decision made in the past has tarnished the opportunities available for both myself and the country to improve and enhance the sporting industry to the current standards in comparison to more established sporting countries.

Putting my case aside, do you think that the government should have a slightly lax'd criteria for other people in a similar situation such as myself, but being able to contribute on a much higher scale?

Such as a top neurosurgeon as an example..

If they did allow such a person to return to the country to work, what would the locals think?

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9314
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Wed, 01 May 2013 7:49 am

They probably already do but you are unlikely that class yet.
They definitely don't and unlikely will in any foreseeable future for anybody who's circle of impact is very limited regardless the uniqueness of her/his skills.

enemi
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri, 20 Nov 2009
Location: United Kingdom

Postby enemi » Thu, 02 May 2013 7:53 am

I get your point - although I'll have to disagree on the perceived lack of impact of contributions.

A government body pushed for this move as I mentioned before, and what is being proposed is of quite a big impact towards the future of sporting success and participation within Singapore.

But, like I say, it's a shame that it did not work out and I wish that Singapore will be able to find a replacement as they are really lacking in this area..

Neighboring countries have been taking the opportunity while the Singapore government is focused on strict rulings; this small window of opportunity have seen less economically advanced countries overtake Singapore in terms of sporting prowess..

User avatar
Mad Scientist
Director
Director
Posts: 3459
Joined: Thu, 03 Dec 2009
Location: TIMBUKTU

Postby Mad Scientist » Thu, 02 May 2013 4:43 pm

enemi wrote:I get your point - although I'll have to disagree on the perceived lack of impact of contributions.

A government body pushed for this move as I mentioned before, and what is being proposed is of quite a big impact towards the future of sporting success and participation within Singapore.

But, like I say, it's a shame that it did not work out and I wish that Singapore will be able to find a replacement as they are really lacking in this area..

Neighboring countries have been taking the opportunity while the Singapore government is focused on strict rulings; this small window of opportunity have seen less economically advanced countries overtake Singapore in terms of sporting prowess..


You are naive in every sense of the word. This is not about ruling. This is in the Singapore Constitution which has been set in stone unless someone or a revolution takes place which I doubt so in Singapore that will change the Constitution.
I have come across people in the field of nano technology, bio chemical research , metallurgist etc which has far more valuable to Singapore economy and yet not able to return to work in Simgapore due to NS liabilities.
You will not be the first nor the last one on this issue. I may not know your field but I believe this loss has little or no significant impact to Singapore.
Just move on and stop griping coz' it's ain't worth it
The positive thinker sees the invisible, feels the intangible, and achieves the impossible.Yahoo !!!

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9314
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Thu, 02 May 2013 6:48 pm

enemi wrote:I get your point - although I'll have to disagree on the perceived lack of impact of contributions.

It's IMHO all about the collateral damage. Not many people can offer to Singapore something that significant to have the government to neglect the possible negative impact such laxing may have.

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35106
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Thu, 02 May 2013 9:52 pm

x9200 is spot on. If they can make an example out of a highflyer NS defaulter, they WILL do so just to make a point to all other who are contemplating trying to pull the same stunt. And you have to admit. It does make a good point of the seriousness that they take the NS obligation.

enemi
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri, 20 Nov 2009
Location: United Kingdom

Postby enemi » Fri, 03 May 2013 7:05 am

True, I agree to a certain extend.

Like I said, already moved on - it was just my curiosity that made me want to find out what others might have experienced.

I've found grass to be greener on the other side too.
:wink:


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Strictly Speaking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests