going on visiting pass (90 days) and looking for a job ?

[Leo99]

One person spends more in 14 days than in 7 days in SG. But, the longer you stay, the less you spend per time unit. I.e., if you only stay 7 days, you spend X. If you stay 2 weeks, maybe you spend 1.8X. If you stay a whole month, this maybe comes down to 2.5-3X or so, or even less, depending. Seeing as you would be looking for cheaper accommodation if you stay longer, and also not spend too much on "touristy" stuff.

That's an interesting theory, but what does it have to do with the subject of how many days a year a tourist can stay in Singapore on a continual basis, i.e. year after year? If SG only wanted visitors for 7 days, then why dish out millions of passes for 14, 30 & 90 days? The longer a tourist stays, the more money is spent in SG. That's good for Singapore.

SG could limit free on arrival visit stamps via air to 30 days as Thailand does, but instead they give out tons of 90 days passes. If you want to go to the hassles & pay, you might be able to get a 2 month tourist visa to Siam, or triple entries for 6 months, or a one year retirement visa. What does SG have for retirees wishing to live for several months or year round in SG? Nothing much except 30 & 90 day passes.

I agree with other commenters, you seem to be just cherry-picking to justify what you want to do - stay here long-ish term via visa runs while looking for work.

Perhaps you have me confused with the OP. As previously stated i am not here "looking to work", but as a retired expat with the plan to split my years between 6 months in LOS & the other 6 a year elsewhere in Asia. ATM i have a preference for SG.

Visa runs? How do you define that? I have no intention of hoping across any borders & returning to SG again within a few days. The minimum time i'll leave SG for is one month & i think 2 or 3 months generally works best for my long term plans. Depending on if i want to check out & spend some months in new places i've never visited, like KL or HKG, it could be even longer.

My intention is in fairly and objectively researching and analyzing the subject of the allowed frequency & duration of visits by tourists to SG. The "cherry-picking" remark from the poster who originally stated that said it re some quotes i posted. As of now they have not been challenged so give the appearance of being an uncontested slam dunk. But if you can find even just a single quote that would disagree with them, please post it so that you too can be labeled a "cherry picker". I think that's the label people often like to use when they can't counter what has been said. It doesn't add any useful info to a discussion, may just be a cheap shot & like waving the white flag of surrender.

You can do that, please, go ahead - but be warned that on your 3rd or 4th
return at the latest, you will face questions and scrutiny (if not earlier), and at some point, you will be barred from entry.

Unless you've studied every case of every visitor to SG, how would you know that 100% of them will be "barred from entry" by their "4th return" visit "at the latest" doing "visa runs"? In fact there are accounts on this forum of people doing visa runs for longer than that.

In one thread (url below) i discovered yesterday, an Italian guy did 90 days in & less than 10 days out repeatedly & with no problems over an 18 month period to August 2010. That's at least 5 visa runs & counting, with no end in sight. There is also the more recent case of the Indonesian, mentioned earlier in this thread, who spent 23-28 days in & 7 days out repeatedly over a 20 month period. That's about 20 visa runs. Then there's the Korean who spent more than 50% of his time in SG over 14 months without any issues & was interested in if he could continue doing this. The responses from forum members were quite favorable to that idea.

http://forum.singaporeexpats.com/ftopic72270.html

You, on the other hand, have not provided one iota of evidence that there has ever been a single case of a first world passport holder being barred from SG by the 3rd or 4th visa run. Do you speak from personal experience, or are you just parroting what someone else said, or making this up to discourage visitors to SG so the infrastructure gets less dust on it?

Why should i be concerned about immigration "questions"? Do you think merely opening a suitcase full of 100 dollar US bills might be the only answer they need? The "scrutiny" session could be over quicker than a premature ejaculator. Or would immigration prefer to see documents (tax returns for the last 6 years, pension papers) proving sufficient income for ever? I surmise that would be the first, and last, time they ever wanted to "scrutinize" such a person. Next time there would be a note on their screen, check this guy through with 90 days, every time he arrives, no questions asked.

Barred from entry? For what? Even the aforementioned Indonesian was likely barred for only 6 months. If he had been able to satisfy immigration's queries or been a US citizen he may have avoided even that. Even an illegally working Korean lady was only barred for a year. Upon returning she immediately recieved 90 days. So in the extremely remote chance i'm ever barred, things don't look too bad. Not bad at all.

Can you cite a single case of a first world passport holder ever being barred from entry when arriving at SG airport, and being deported? If so, what were the circumstances? I would think SG wouldn't want such a case getting in the major news media. It could be bad for business. Very bad. "American citizen visiting SG locked in detention without food, water or toilet. Told she cannot enter country, must return to USA at her own expense. No warning given. No rules stated. No reason either." Ooops. SG just lost millions of dollars in tourist revenue.

Understand that this is entirely up to the immigration authorities, and once you are blacklisted, it can be tricky to get off that list.

What's so tricky about getting off the blacklist?

Does SG bar or blacklist law abiding friendly typical 1st world passport visitors who can prove they are not working? If so, please cite a single case where this occurred in the entire history of SG, this forum or any other. If not, then i conclude that, in accord with my SVPs, i have nothing to worry about & can visit whenever & however often i please.

I'm sure immigration is aware there are not many prostitutes from France, Canada & Macau who come to SG to ply their trade.

But of course, if you can find a job within 2-4 months, you should be fine. No one can guarantee that though, and even if you do find a job, a visa is not guaranteed either.

Thanks for the opinions, they may be of assistance to the OP, but no job hunting for me. As a retired profesional gambler, any money i make in SG will be at their casinos.

-----------------

Led Zeppelin's Robert Plant twice denied entry to SG/couldn't get in in the 70's, can now, even with long hair:

http://www.robertplant.com/press/twice- ... orms-here/

[AngMoG]

Yeah, I got you a bit confused with the OP. Sorry for that. Nonetheless, at some point SG authorities may consider you a resident-without-resident-visa (or worse, somebody who is working here without work/business visa or paying taxes), and refuse you entry. Many countries would have that threshold somewhere around the 180-days mark (actual stay per year). There was a post quite recently from an Indonesian who got barred from entry in Singapore precisely because of that. Those are not "first world" though, and treatment differs of course.

E.g., http://forum.singaporeexpats.com/ftopic ... ight=visit or http://forum.singaporeexpats.com/ftopic95545.html

If you stay less than those 180 (or 183) days each year, you may be fine - but then again, that is entirely up to the authorities, so as usual, your mileage may vary. If you are high-net-worth, there may not be much to worry about to begin with.

You are looking for clear procedures and rules, but those are rather opaque here. It is entirely up to ICA to allow or refuse you entry. They may bar you on your 3rd entry, or they may as well let you enter and leave without bothering you for 1-2 years or longer. They may think you are working here, or they may think you are involved in illegal activities.

And since you are asking for a first world citizen having been denied entry to SG - there recently was a case - google for "james minchin refused entry singapore". He is an Australian citizen; though to be fair, he was suspected of getting involved in local politics here, which is a big no-no.

[sundaymorningstaple]

The retirement LTVP no longer exists. The URL to the ICA website link is no longer in existence so I am assuming it was another casualty of the May 2011 General Election when the local citizenry made their feelings known and gave the PAP a pretty good shock. The biggest complaint was overcrowding and too many foreigners. So, one of the first to go was the retirement LTVP as these people do not contribute anything to the country's GDP. Yeah, I know, you have lots of money to spend, but that doesn't generate any income taxes, nor does it employ citizens but you do cause additional loading on the infrastructure, be it on the MRT, on the roads, or taking up usable housing that can be taken up by someone who is working.

The people have spoken and the words were pretty harsh (and still are).

The following is a link to a British Expat forum (of which I personally know some of the posters who were here previously - Seasider for one) You will see a link in the post to an ICA page for the Retirement Visa (but it's no longer a valid link as the VISA has been done away with. (the post was in April 2011, just before the GE. (The GE was a watershed for the opposition Workers Party and it put the ruling party on notice. So things are getting rougher and rougher.)

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showpost ... ostcount=8

I do love it when people who have money think they can do anything. I how agent Leo99 will keep us posted how he gets on as most of the links he has referred to are almost without fail, from Pre-2011 GE when everything started getting tight.

[ecureilx]

The longer the tourists stay, the lesser they spend ..

That's surprising, since IME the longer i stay, the more i spend. The first week i spent X dollars on my hotel room. After 2 weeks it was 2 times X, so twice as much than if i had stayed only one week, and so on re 3,4,5 weeks, food bills, entertainment costs, etc.

I got it ..

You are the great exception .. nuff said .. !!!!!

[Leo99]

The retirement LTVP no longer exists. The URL to the ICA website link is no longer in existence so I am assuming it was another casualty of the May 2011 General Election when the local citizenry made their feelings known and gave the PAP a pretty good shock. The biggest complaint was overcrowding and too many foreigners.

The present government, the PAP, intend to bring in even more foreign workers in greater numbers than there are now. You've heard of the White Paper passed by parliament earlier this year by an overwhelming majority vote?

I mentioned the LTVP retirement visa earlier in this thread & didn't get the impression anyone here had even heard of it. Was this ever reported in the SG media? Did a single person ever sign up for it? Why was it discarded? If it reduced the number of foreign residents by 10, that leaves only 2 million more to go, with increased numbers on the way.

But what does any of this have to do with foreign tourists, especially those with first world passports? The PAP aim to bring in 30 million visitors in the year 2015, up from a record high of 22 million last year.

From what i've read, none of the political parties' comments, or those by anyone else in the universe, have expressed concerns that tourist numbers are too high, only you.

[sundaymorningstaple]

I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or it's your natural being, but several things where you seem to have reading comprehension.

The retirement LTVP no longer exists. The URL to the ICA website link is no longer in existence so I am assuming it was another casualty of the May 2011 General Election when the local citizenry made their feelings known and gave the PAP a pretty good shock. The biggest complaint was overcrowding and too many foreigners.

The present government, the PAP, intend to bring in even more foreign workers in greater numbers than there are now. You've heard of the White Paper passed by parliament earlier this year by an overwhelming majority vote?

Not only have I heard of it, I was the one who posted a link to it here on this forum. Oh, the only reason is passed by an overwhelming majority is the PAP IS the overwhelming majority controlling all except 9 seats. And unless the whip is lifted, the PAP members have to vote the party line. In fact, I was one of the first to read it as I'm a long time member of the Peoples Association Resident's committee. Maybe you want to go back and have another read of it. Paying close attention to Chapter 3 and also the executive summary where it states

"For the rest of this decade, as the growth of our
Singaporean workforce slows, our total workforce
growth will also slow to about 1% to 2% per year,
half of the 3.3% per year over the past 30 years.
Beyond 2020, workforce growth will slow down
further to about 1% per year as the population ages
and the Singaporean workforce starts to plateau.
We must thus rely less on foreign labour, use our
resources better, and redouble efforts to improve
productivity."

Immigration numbers and the foreign labour force are two different things. Immigration numbers are new citizens and Permanent Residents only. Not Employment Pass and Work Permit holders. Tourists aren't even talked about in the white paper but tourism does put a extra load on the infastructure. 30 million tourists at year is a lot of shit and other stuff. Any increases in tourism will need infrastructure upgrading, more hotels, more taxis, (more crowded highways) and so forth. Singapore has three types of people running around the island, Residents (Citizens & PRs), Non-residents (EP/WP/DP & student pass holders) and the third are transient (tourists which are not accounted for but do put additional stresses on the infrastructure due to the large the influx of tourists - especially for events geared to draw them in like the F-1.) As has already been noted here, when they stay longer than 3 days, the benefit versus loading decreases the longer they stay. Sure there are the odd few but they don't skew the facts.

I mentioned the LTVP retirement visa earlier in this thread & didn't get the impression anyone here had even heard of it. Was this ever reported in the SG media? Did a single person ever sign up for it? Why was it discarded? If it reduced the number of foreign residents by 10, that leaves only 2 million more to go, with increased numbers on the way.

But what does any of this have to do with foreign tourists, especially those with first world passports? The PAP aim to bring in 30 million visitors in the year 2015, up from a record high of 22 million last year.

Now you are back to your disjointed points. Who care about the LTVP retirement visa. If it's not used or didn't get the anticipated response, then they do away with it. Simple. And who care about the numbers of 1st world tourists as well. They make more from PRC and Japanese tourists than all of the western world combined.

From what i've read, none of the political parties' comments, or those by anyone else in the universe, have expressed concerns that tourist numbers are too high, only you.

I never said the tourist levels were too high, again, maybe you would like to read what was written and not what you wanted to see.... For one thing, an LTVP holder is not a tourist. The LTVP give you Non-Residency just like the EP/WP/DP does. It is NOT a SVP - Social Visit Pass (Tourist). You are the one who is confused.

[DrPaulMasters]

Hello,

I am a recent university graduate from the US, trying to determine if it is legal (and not entirely morally reprehensible) to, say, go for a 90 day "visit" with an onward ticket to Kuala Lumpur to explore job opportunities and then apply for EP if I get any offers.

The reason for doing this, is to be available for interviews and avoid sending resumes into the void of companies'/recruiters' websites.

If there is nothing wrong with this, how practical is this going to be in terms of securing residence (a room or something cheap,) and banking?

Thank all.

There's nothing wrong with coming here on a fact-finding mission. however, two caveats

1. Don't get caught working.
2. Don't overstay

I did exactly the same thing when I arrived here. Hotels are extremely expensive, and hostels cater for back-packing, but not interviews etc. I found a clean hotel at 1 florence close in kovan (about 25mins away from the CBD by commuter train).

If your tourist visa expires, you can visit Johor Bahru, commonly known as JB. Its the closest city in Malaysia, and you get another tourist visa on your return. JB is notorious for pickpockets, so keep things zipped up.

[Leo99]

Yeah, I know, you have lots of money to spend, but that doesn't generate any income taxes, nor does it employ citizens but you do cause additional loading on the infrastructure, be it on the MRT, on the roads, or taking up usable housing that can be taken up by someone who is working.

1. First of all, saying tourists tax the infrastructure is stating the obvious. You've said it at least 3 times already in this thread alone. So what? What's your point? Why should i care? Does saying that have anything to do with this topic? Do you want tourists to stay home & not visit SG?

2. Secondly, as to "income taxes", what you failed to add is that tourists such as i create, sustain & enrich income tax paying businesses & jobs in SG. Such taxes go to support the infrastructure & pay many times over the cost of strain that tourists put on it. If there are no tourists, you can forget about those billions of dollars in taxes they generate, as there wouldn't be any, and the government would get nothing instead. Tourists also pay large amounts of other kinds of tax. So either directly or indirectly, tourists are actually generating income tax and other kinds of tax revenue for the government.

3. Tourists generally stay in hotels (average cost over $200/day). Is this the "usable housing" you refer to. My hotel seems half empty most of the time. Do you want to blame a lack of "usable housing" on tourists? I don't see anyone else doing that, only you alone. BTW, the PAP admitted to blame for the present infrastructure strains in that they didn't make it sufficient & are planning to upgrade it with new towns, 700,000 new housing units, etc. Moreover post election 2011 with their blessing & support SG recieved tourists in record numbers in 2012. What does that say about your theory re immigration tightening things post 2011.

4. Fourthly, it's the foreign workers & other non tourist foreigners who put the vast majority of strain on the infrastructure as far as foreigners go. These are the foreigners some politicians & people in SG have been whining about. Hardly a peep do you hear from anyone but you about tourists straining infrastructure. Yet you've already spoken about it at least 3 times in this thread alone.

5. Fifth, many complain about foreigners in SG taking jobs away from them. Of course tourists are just the opposite. They provide jobs.

6. Sixth, some complain about foreign residents cooking curry & being noisy. How many tourists are going to be cooking Indian food in their hotel room that would disturb a SG resident living in "usable housing" a mile away?

It should now be becoming quite clear why the foreigners some politicians and other Singaporeans cry about are not tourists.

Maybe you want to go back and have another read of it.

Why, is there a point you're trying to make in what you cut and pasted?

The present PAP government intend to bring in even more foreigners, tourists & non tourists, to SG than there have ever been before. They'll be in power till at least 2016 & probably well beyond that. So i see no reason to heed your lame theories as to why the OP, myself or other tourists should be concerned with immigration.

Tourists aren't even talked about in the white paper but tourism does put a extra load on the infastructure.

30 million tourists at year is a lot of shit and other stuff. Any increases in tourism will need infrastructure upgrading, more hotels, more taxis, (more crowded highways) and so forth.

I'm sure the PAP are taking notes on your every word. Hundreds of times more important than all of that, tourists equal tons more money & jobs for SG.

Re infrastructure, if you've been following the PAP & the White Paper, they intend to create an infrastructure that will support a 6.9 million population by 2030, 50% of the added numbers being non tourist foreigners Compare that to a population of 5.3 million now. So i wouldn't worry about a few tourists.

Who care about the LTVP retirement visa.

Exactly my point. So why did you bring it up repeatedly in your post of Sun Aug 04, 2013 9:22 pm?

What does it have to do with the OP, myself or other tourists making visa runs or 3-6 month annual visits to SG without as much as a raised eyebrow, let alone a question (except do you like 'candy') from immigration?

And who care about the numbers of 1st world tourists as well. They make more from PRC and Japanese tourists than all of the western world combined.

If you've been following the discussion, it's not the numbers of them that has been the point, but how immigration treats them preferentially as distinct from others as it regards repeat lengthy visits to SG, which you may recall is the the main discussion topic of this thread.

Japan, South Korea, USA, UK, SG, etc, are all first world countries. Which recalls the case of the S. Korean who recently spent more than 50% of his time in SG in 14 consecutive months. According to you he never returned to report how things went with him thereafter with immigration & his visits to SG because he was probably barred from entry & too concerned about losing face. This based on your belief that immigration is cracking down on foreigners since the 2011 election, even though not a single comparable case in support of your theory has been posted. Even though the PAP has stated publicly they plan to bring in increased numbers of foreigners, both tourists and non tourists. Therefore IMO your theory looks quite lame on a number of fronts. The evidence i've posted, including that from several members of this site, does not agree with your opinions.

[DrPaulMasters]

ICA uses an SQL database. it matches your passport number with your bank details, FIN and mobile number and looks to see where you pay in and withdraw any money. You can muddy the water a little by only paying in via atm machines and suffering an acute attack of dyscalculia when entering in your mobile number, but MySQL is only half of the problem.

IF you have been flagged by the database (and until we can see the code, we'll never know what the triggers are), then an actual human will be involved: these people are not so easily confusticated. We can guess at the algorithms with sufficient data:

not staying the full length of time (28/30 for example)
Having an onward ticket (more on this later)
having a passport from (x country)
being of a certain age
etc

however, the MySQL database codes can be changed rapidly, meaning that someone who was just under the radar is now in the headlights.

When I first arrived here, I didn't have an onward ticket. Please note, it's an onward ticket, not a return. They asked me how long I was staying, and I said just a few days. They asked where I was going to, and I said that I was off to Penang afterwards. They asked why I hadn't bought a ticket, and I said that I didn't know the exact date that I was leaving, so I hadn't bought one yet.

This seemed to satisfy them.

At the end of my first EP pass, I over-stayed by one or two days. As I was leaving the country, the ICA staff said "we won't put a black mark on your record this time, but don't do it again".

On my return, I was quizzed why I was coming into the country, but luckily the new employer had already applied for my EP pass, which showed up on the database.

ICA departments the world over are charged with keeping out 'undesirables'. Sometimes the fish evade the net, other times the dolphins get caught up in it. I'm not sure how the discussion about PAP's stance on immigration is helping the OP.

• Tourism = revenue. most govts are in favour of this.
  Foreign workers = employment for nationals. the phrase 'taking our jobs' is never applicable. It doesn't make sense for any ICA dept to issue work passes for workers who are competing for jobs that their citizens want.
  Increased population = taxed infrastructure
  Renovation of infrastructure = jobs
  more jobs = more tax revenue.

Perhaps we should split this thread into two discussions?

[Mad Scientist]

To : DrPaulMasters

Your last post is somewhat interesting and I am keen to know more. Please provide info on what you know about SQL database in ICA metadata systems
I am intrigue by this finding and what you have wrote after that

ms

[Mi Amigo]

MS, Interesting that you didn't get a reply to your question.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Why do many nationalities require a visa to get into the country for much shorter visits, while others require no visa at all & get to stay 90 days? Clearly there are desirables & much more desirables & they should not all be lumped together when considering issues such as staying in SG for 2-6 months every year on visit passes of 30-90 days. Generally speaking first world passport holders are the latter, wouldn't you agree?

Just to clarify a small but salient fact. The reason Singapore gives 90 days to certain countries is that they are reciprocating what that country gives Singaporeans on entry into their country. Other countries are dependent on whether or not they deem the country as one that would be both beneficial and prudent to give longer or shorter duration visa and whether to charge for visas or not.

As a tourist, the government knows already that the whole country can be seen in a week - 10 days max. But in order to give reciprocity they give equal length visas.

[ecureilx]

As a tourist, the government knows already that the whole country can be seen in a week - 10 days max. But in order to give reciprocity they give equal length visas.

Before the Woodlands check point queue system was changed, I overheard one girl being asked what she want to do in Singapore, and she went "To see the country, travel around .. etc. etc" and the officer went, "well, you already spent a month here, I will give you 3 days, you can get back to your country... "

BTW, from what I know reciprocity doesn't have to be 100% 1-to-1. It may be limited to visa-free arrival, or charging same amount for visa issuance. Period of stay doesn't have to be vice-versa. (that's from what I know .. )

[sundaymorningstaple]

It's always up to the discretion of the individual immigration officer, but those are the general guidelines on how the upper limits were derived.

[Mad Scientist]

MS, Interesting that you didn't get a reply to your question.

Yeah, I am eagerly waiting for his reply. TBH, not many knows except of course me . But again system always improving and new data link integration is always being implemented.I, myself, can hardly keep up.