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

[Mi Amigo]

Yeah but if they let Leo99 in for 90 days, it wasn't b/c of his return ticket to the states. On what grounds did they let him have the 90 day pass?

On the grounds that this was his first visit to Singapore and for a US passport holder that is a common thing to do. The default mode is that you are very welcome to come in and spend your money here (just don't do anything wrong).

From anecdotal evidence on this board, it seems that a 90 day SVP is not always issued, and sometimes people specifically ask for 90 days when they arrive. That's when questions such as "Please may I see your return ticket?" may be asked.

Doing 'visa runs' once or twice can be problem free (depending on various factors), but trying to do that 'indefinitely' is definitely NOT recommended. Leo99 is looking for a 'formula' that will work and the short answer is that we cannot provide one.

I'm sure that the computer systems used by the immigration authorities have sophisticated algorithms for flagging up 'questionable' patterns of entry and exit. Plus I'll bet that the immigration officers themselves are very well trained in spotting when someone is trying to game the system.

In all my years travelling to/from and living here, the only question I've ever been asked is "Would you like a sweet?" [There's a little bowl of candies on the counter at the immigration desk]. But if/when someone reaches the point where the authorities suspect they are trying to circumvent the residency regulations, their reaction will be immediate and firm. Many examples of this have been highlighted on this board over the years.

[econstudent]

Yeah but if they let Leo99 in for 90 days, it wasn't b/c of his return ticket to the states. On what grounds did they let him have the 90 day pass?

On the grounds that this was his first visit to Singapore and for a US passport holder that is a common thing to do. The default mode is that you are very welcome to come in and spend your money here (just don't do anything wrong).

From anecdotal evidence on this board, it seems that a 90 day SVP is not always issued, and sometimes people specifically ask for 90 days when they arrive. That's when questions such as "Please may I see your return ticket?" may be asked.

Doing 'visa runs' once or twice can be problem free (depending on various factors), but trying to do that 'indefinitely' is definitely NOT recommended. Leo99 is looking for a 'formula' that will work and the short answer is that we cannot provide one.

I'm sure that the computer systems used by the immigration authorities have sophisticated algorithms for flagging up 'questionable' patterns of entry and exit. Plus I'll bet that the immigration officers themselves are very well trained in spotting when someone is trying to game the system.

In all my years travelling to/from and living here, the only question I've ever been asked is "Would you like a sweet?" [There's a little bowl of candies on the counter at the immigration desk]. But if/when someone reaches the point where the authorities suspect they are trying to circumvent the residency regulations, their reaction will be immediate and firm. Many examples of this have been highlighted on this board over the years.

Thank you! That makes sense.

[Mi Amigo]

Thank you! That makes sense.

You're most welcome.

What exactly is it they are interested in or worried about? If they don't want retired folks visiting their country bringing tons of money in, spending it in SG, filling up their hotels, they can just ban them & we'll be happy to go & spend it elsewhere. BTW didn't they recently annul a LSVP for people over 45?

Leo, forgive me if I don't respond to all the points and questions you raised earlier; the simple truth is that I can't, i.e. I'm unable to second-guess the immigration folks. All we can do is look at the anecdotal evidence from those who have posted their experiences on the board over the years. I realise that this doesn't give you an exact 'blueprint' for what you would like to do, but I'm sure you understand that this is not an exact science. It can be frustrating for the regulars here too, when we get repeatedly asked these kinds of questions (hence SMS' last comments). I would suggest that (if you haven't already done so) you use the search function above and have a read-up on similar threads, as this subject does come up fairly frequently.

Just in regards to the part I quoted above, the Singapore government is indeed very interested in having tourists visit Singapore as it has been identified as a key part of the country's economic development for the future. However, there is a distinction to be made between a 'frequent visitor' and a 'part-time resident' - clearly the dividing line is not clear-cut and there is a grey area at the boundary. You need to consider this discussion in the context of the populace's general unhappiness at there being (in their minds) "too many foreigners" here. They are generally referring to people who 'live' here rather than tourists, but again, people who come and go frequently are also under the spotlight. Therefore the 'gahmen' wants to be seen to being firm about controlling who 'visits' on a regular basis, as well as those to whom it grants employment passes, PR, LTVPs, etc.

So it's not only about whether people are coming here to work - we have heard of increasing difficulty for some folks (particularly from the subcontinent it appears) in obtaining LTVPs for parents, etc. Those people don't want to work either, just live with their families, but the internal critieria (whatever they may be) seem to have been tightened in this area too. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some folks are trying to get around this by doing the 'x' months here / 'y' months elsewhere thing. Hence this kind of activity will always be on the radar.

I'm not aware of any changes in the LTVP eligibility for people over 45 (normally these things are handled on a case by case basis), but perhaps others could chime in on this if there has been some kind of change announced.

One thing you might want to consider is calling the ICA, explaining your situation, desired goals and asking their advice. In my experience, they have always tried to be helpful, without of course revealing their internal processes or criteria, which they will never do. If you do that, please consider sharing any information you obtain here, for the benefit of others in future.

ICA contact details here:

http://www.ica.gov.sg/page.aspx?pageid=117

Including this:

The ICA 24-hour Call Centre -
For general enquiries or further clarifications on our products or services, please contact us at 6391 6100

[Leo99]

No questions or any word at all was said to me on my maiden voyage into SG. Just a ninety day stamp, as per the number of days i indicated on the entry form. Easy peasy.

Did you declare cash or in any way reveal your finances before they made the decision of 90 vs 30 day pass? Did you reveal that you were retired?

Thanks for continuing the thread.

Nope, none of that. When my turn to see an officer came up, another person with immigration told me what booth number to go to. When i got there i said "hello" & grinned, offering the guy my documents (USA passport & entry form stating my intention to stay 80 some days). He grinned in return, took my papers without saying a word, did his PC & stamping stuff for a minute, returned my PP, & i was on my way with a ninety day entry. Nothing to it.

I did, however, come prepared with 2 air tickets out of SG at around 29 & 85 days, in case he wanted to see proof of an exit plan, and in case i was not granted a 90 day SV pass, but only 30 days. But that was, no doubt, overkill. One ticket would have been enough and, as it turned out, none was necessary, since none was asked to be seen. If i had come in with just the 85 day ticket and was only granted a 30 day pass, i'm sure it wouldn't have been a problem. I'd suggest you might want to have a ticket of similar duration as well as write on the entry card for the number of days you intend to stay as enough that would require a 90 day pass. My guess & opinion is that, for a first time visit to Lion City, the odds are in your favor.

As to finances i was prepared to show travellers checks, cash, credit cards, bank cards & statements, if necessary, but the officer never asked for anything or even spoke a word to me. For the entry card into Thailand you are required to indicate your occupation, including an option for retired, and the level of your finances. But, if i recall correctly & am not mistaken, the entry card to Singapore has no such requirements, nor does it even mention such things. You can view the card you must fill out through this page:

http://www.ica.gov.sg/page.aspx?pageid=97

As to why a guy in your position, or mine on my virgin entry, might not be granted a 90 day pass, as some comments on this forum & others i've read might indicate, i can't recall anyone stating a reason. Maybe they'd expect an older guy to be more likely to have sufficient funds for a ninety day visit? Maybe they would be less likely to grant 90 days to a punk looking, foul smelling, rude, shifty eyed drunk guy with one long spike for a hairdoo? Who knows, eh? The replies in this thread & other sites imply it is up to the immigration gods, lady luck, fate or destiny. And, unless you are one of them, who knows what they are thinking? Nobody knows, or those who do aren't telling/keeping it a secret, & the official sites don't give a clue.

As you can see, i don't know it all - far from it - and am full of questions. But i do like to smell good, so like Brad Pitt i wear Chanel No.5. I was wearing it before he started doing his ads for the product.

Perhaps more answers & insights can be found in the threads poster "Mi Amigo" was so kind to refer me to. As I'm sure the boys here have a life & better things to do than spending all day replying to my queries & elaborating on their comments. Some topics may also be taboo. Or people just don't know much about some of the issues surrounding this mysterious topic. Let me know if you come across anything of interest.

[Leo99]

I'm not aware of any changes in the LTVP eligibility for people over 45 (normally these things are handled on a case by case basis), but perhaps others could chime in on this if there has been some kind of change announced.

The thing i was reading about sounded somewhat like a retirement visa to Thailand:

"A Long Term Visit Pass is appropriate for those who are traveling to Singapore with their spouse or adult child
who is a Singapore citizen or permanent resident. Long Term passes are also available to those who are 45 years
of age or older; own a property (or properties) in Singapore that are worth at least S$500,000 (in total); have
savings of at least S$400,000 in Singapore or show evidence of a monthly local income of at least S$7,000; be in
good health, and have valid medical insurance in Singapore. The pass is renewable."

I've left out the url as i'm not clear whether posting the site it is from would be considered advertising. But it is easy enough to google it should it be of interest. Another site stated:

"Long Term Visit Pass (LTVP) option for visitor seeking long term stay in Singapore

September 21, 2012 By Neethu Stephen

Update 2013:

Please note the Long Term Visit Pass for Retirees visa has been discontinued by ICA. Article left intact for historicity."

The article continued:

"There is good news for visitors who are looking for long-term stay in Singapore. These maybe for reasons like retirement, seek superior medical facilities or for world class education for your children. If you are not looking at the traditional route of applying for an employment pass to gain long term stay option in Singapore, the other possibility you can look at is a Long Term Visit Pass (LTVP) issued by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority of Singapore (ICA).

An option to apply for a LTVP is available based on the eligibility criteria laid down below,

Eligibility Criteria

Visitors should be,

1.45 years old and above;
2.Own a property / properties in Singapore worth at least S$500,000 (in total) for residential purposes and meet any one of the following financial requirements:

â– have savings of at least S$400,000 parked in Singapore in any form of financial instruments based in Singapore, or
â– show evidence of a monthly local income of at least S$7,000, or
â– have a combined, savings and 5-year equivalent income of at least $400,000.

3.must be in good health
4.have valid Medical Insurance in Singapore

The LTVP is granted for a period upto 5 years and at the time of renewals, the pass holder seeking renewals should meet the same criteria."

End quote.

[Leo99]

All we can do is look at the anecdotal evidence from those who have posted their experiences on the board over the years. I realise that this doesn't give you an exact 'blueprint' for what you would like to do, but I'm sure you understand that this is not an exact science...(snip)...I would suggest that (if you haven't already done so) you use the search function above and have a read-up on similar threads, as this subject does come up fairly frequently.

Let's look at the evidence.

I read a number of recent (2011 to 2013) discussions on this site pertaining to regular visits, for up to 20 months, to Singapore on short term (up to 90 day) passes. The one that seemed most relevant to this thread was about a Korean passport holder. He alleged to visit SG 8 times in a 14 month period up to May 2012, including several trips of 60-90 days & others of 30 days, 7 days, etc. So, evidently, he spent over 7 months, or at least 50% of his time, in Singapore in a period over a year without any mention of immigration raising so much as an eyebrow, let alone ever questioning, interogating, warning, limiting, deporting or banning him. He came to visit his GF in SG & left for around a month after each visit.

The purpose of the thread he started was to inquire if he could keep on visiting in that way legally & without any problems. The responses by other posters were more or less favorable in that regard. Unfortunately, he did not as yet report back as to how he fared in the last 15 months. The thread title was "Flying in and out of Singapore on Tourist Visa" and can be read at:

http://forum.singaporeexpats.com/ftopic ... ight=visit

Looking at another thread, a young guy from the UK said on Dec. 30/2012 he had holidayed in SG "numerous times over the past 3-4 years" because he liked the country so much. He mentions no issues with immigration for this heinous crime:

"Thinking about migrating - Have a few queries."
http://forum.singaporeexpats.com/ftopic ... ight=visit

A third thread was about an Indonesian repeatedly visiting SG for 23-28 days before exiting for a week to his country. So he was in for 23-28 days & out for a week, over & over again, with no issues, for 20 months, till late July 2011. He claims that he was eventually stopped in SG & deported when he returned from a side trip to BKK for a few days. If SG immigration were so efficient, it is unclear why they allowed this obvious pattern to go on for so long. He details how he was interrogated, couldn't answer questions to immigrations satisfaction & was thrown in with many of the usual types you'd expect to be getting deported; no Koreans, Americans, Brits or any other first world passport holders.

He claimed to not be working in SG & that the purpose of his visits were to help his pregnant sister. I surmise that if he had been able to prove he had no need to work (i.e. financially independent or self-sufficient), as i can, his experience with immigration may have been quite the opposite. They may have offered him some candy, a cool one and a hot meal. This thread is titled "Refused from entering singapore, how long i can go back?" and found at:

http://forum.singaporeexpats.com/ftopic ... ight=visit

BTW the consensus opinions of the thread were that he'd only be banned from SG for a measly 6 months. In another instance of banning, a Korean lady got just one year for working illegally. Upon her return forum members suggested she might not even get a 30 day pass, yet as it turned out her husband claims she got 90:

http://forum.singaporeexpats.com/ftopic ... ight=visit

Any other very recent (as opposed to irrelevant 1990's) reports or "anecdotal evidence" i should consider?

Based on the evidence i've seen so far i think it likely i'll have no problems with immigration re regular long visits (30-90 days at a time) year after year, and will be well prepared in case they need proof i have sufficient funds and am not working in SG.

I see nothing on the ICA site saying such a behaviour is illegal. The only piece of info related to this topic is where they imply one should leave SG for 5 or more days before returning after a 60-90 day visit. Incidentally, a photocopy of that page might be useful for travellers who have issues with immigration & officers who claim to be unaware of it. Immigration should not expect the average traveller to be up to speed re the latest cutting edge info on online forums, but only with what is stated on their own website.

If at some point my visits are reduced, its not the end of the world, and I'll spend less time in SG and more in a place like KL or HKG. Who knows, having never been there i might even find those cities more desirable than SG. KL would most likely be quite a bit less expensive. But time will tell & a lot can change in a year or two.

Just in regards to the part I quoted above, the Singapore government is indeed very interested in having tourists visit Singapore as it has been identified as a key part of the country's economic development for the future. However, there is a distinction to be made between a 'frequent visitor' and a 'part-time resident' - clearly the dividing line is not clear-cut and there is a grey area at the boundary.

What's the difference between the two? I'm living here for 3 months, not just visiting for 3 days, as granted by SG immigration. When a person stays 3 months every year for 3, 5, or 10 years, what should that be labelled? BTW someone said that a visitor could see all there is to see of the island in a week. So why give 3 months?

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?

You need to consider this discussion in the context of the populace's general unhappiness at there being (in their minds) "too many foreigners" here. They are generally referring to people who 'live' here rather than tourists, but again, people who come and go frequently are also under the spotlight. Therefore the 'gahmen' wants to be seen to being firm about controlling who 'visits' on a regular basis, as well as those to whom it grants employment passes, PR, LTVPs, etc.

What kind of a "spotlight" were the above mentioned, frequent visiting, Korean, Brit & Indonesian under?

There are obviously many Singapore citizens who are happy to see visiting foreigners in their country. After all, it's their foregn dollars that keep numerous people in SG from being unemployed. So as far as these employees & the local businesses that hire them are concerned, the more (tourists) the merrier.

The hotel i'm staying in seems half empty all the time & delighted to have me. Likewise with various other businesses i frequent to buy food, clothes & stuff. I'm not a freeloader like someone's mom coming from a third world poor country or "subcontinent" & contributing nothing to the prosperity of the city-state, & just being a burden (financially speaking) on someone who's already living here. If i weren't here the hotel room would be empty & the hotel short a few thousand dollars each month.

So it's not only about whether people are coming here to work - we have heard of increasing difficulty for some folks (particularly from the subcontinent it appears) in obtaining LTVPs for parents, etc. Those people don't want to work either, just live with their families, but the internal critieria (whatever they may be) seem to have been tightened in this area too. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some folks are trying to get around this by doing the 'x' months here / 'y' months elsewhere thing. Hence this kind of activity will always be on the radar.

People who want to "live with their families...don't want to work either". These are often freeloaders, who offer the SG economy nothing & take up space & resources that effects SG citizens, quite a different matter from my proposed course of visiting SG, or that of the OP for employment purposes. I trust immigration can & will be able to make the distinction between the two, as well as between a Pakastani & USA passport holder.

One thing you might want to consider is calling the ICA, explaining your situation, desired goals and asking their advice. In my experience, they have always tried to be helpful, without of course revealing their internal processes or criteria, which they will never do. If you do that, please consider sharing any information you obtain here, for the benefit of others in future.

I intend not to be like others who have failed to report back with their experiences after benefiting from this site. It's the civilized thing to do, to give back, after all the help i've recieved here. Not sure i want to contact ICA, though. Perhaps someone with nothing to lose, such as an expat in Singapore, can pick up the phone & make the 5 minute call, for the enlightenment of the site. Maybe say you're phoning re a friend, interested parties, or a popular forum, & have a question: how may months a year is it acceptable for a USA or first world passport holder to visit Singapore? Two, three, four, six months a year, or as often as they like? What kinds of evidence will satisfy immigration concerns about frequent visitors of this type? For example would seeing pension documents of a certain income level satisfy them that one is financially self-sufficient and not working in SG? Or are they not worried about people from 1st world nations that they treat with special privileges, like VIPs, and offer the possibility to stay for 90 days at a time?

It can be frustrating for the regulars here too, when we get repeatedly asked these kinds of questions (hence SMS' last comments).

A sticky at the top of the page with links to particular sub topics related to the subject might help. Something regulars could refer people to & update as new info comes in. Something country specific, like this, perhaps:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/189 ... he-region/

[sundaymorningstaple]

If we did as you suggested, we would have the first six pages of every forum on this board filled with stickies.

Frankly, you have to realize one thing. Things are changing rapidly since the last General Election in May 2011 (which will, funny enough,coincide with one of the examples you trotted out early on in the above post). As the opposition member here grow in number, their cries are becoming more and more strident. We are now in the countdown to the 2016 GE and the ruling party here is doing all it can to mollify the opposition public and also keep the businesses happy and staffed with the manpower it needs.

Unfortunately, with the population getting more and more xenophobic and the transport systems/road struggling more and more to cope with the heavy influx of foreign workers/traffic, the government is hard pressed to acquiesce to the demands by foreigners to bring in their dependents as well. Recently their have been changes on some of the various Employment Passes that curtail the bringing of certain family members over. This is due to the outcry by the local public over overcrowding. Therefore, letting in somebody who will just be taking up valuable space without contributing SFA to the economy will likely have a hard time getting a long term visit pass unless you really are bringing something to the table that the country needs.

Good Luck as I fear you may need a healthy dose of it.

sms

NB: Those examples you gave above, that haven't updated with us? They probably have egg on their faces and are back in their home countries now. That's why we don't hear from them. Nobody likes to brag and then have to come back and eat crow.

[sundaymorningstaple]

OH, one other thing. I did it as well. Came in for 28 days on a 30 day visa and went away for a month. I did this for around 9 years during the 1980's. Was easy back then. I worked in the offshore oil fields. But there were lots of us back then and a good sized chunk of us has local wives and kids as well, but we couldn't get a EP or PR as we didn't actually work in Singapore. However, back in those days, ICA was a lot more forgiving and they knew we were spending the money here.

[Mi Amigo]

Leo, hats off to you for following our advice and searching the board for other relevant threads. IMO The main conclusion to be drawn is: YMMV - it's just not possible for us to predict with any long-term accuracy how successful or otherwise you will be. TBH I don't understand why you're reluctant to contact the ICA yourself, given your intention to abide by the rules and your wish to avoid any problems. But obviously that's entirely up to you.

From what I've read and heard over the years, there is a clear distinction made by the authorities between 'frequent visitors' and 'residents'. Clearly your desire is to stay in the former category, but we cannot give you a foolproof formula for achieving that.

I'll look forward to reading your updates over the coming months.

[Leo99]

If we did as you suggested, we would have the first six pages of every forum on this board filled with stickies.

The example posted was just one page with many links to various topics of recent reports in different countries. Much like your handy page i see in many of your posts.

Frankly, you have to realize one thing. Things are changing rapidly since the last General Election in May 2011 (which will, funny enough,coincide with one of the examples you trotted out early on in the above post). As the
opposition member here grow in number, their cries are becoming more and more strident. We are now in the countdown to the 2016 GE and the ruling party here is doing all it can to mollify the opposition public and also keep the businesses happy and staffed with the manpower it needs.

Unfortunately, with the population getting more and more xenophobic and the transport systems/road struggling more and more to cope with the heavy influx of foreign workers/traffic, the government is hard pressed to acquiesce to the demands by foreigners to bring in their dependents as well. Recently their have been changes on some of the various Employment Passes that curtail the bringing of certain family members over. This is due to the outcry by the local public over overcrowding. Therefore, letting in somebody who will just be taking up valuable space without
contributing SFA to the economy will likely have a hard time getting a long term visit pass unless you really are bringing something to the table that the country needs.

Good Luck as I fear you may need a healthy dose of it.

What does any of that have to do with tourists or those retired expat visitors who wish to spend several months a year in SG? They are two completely different & unrelated issues. In fact all signs indicate tourism is booming in SG, the govt is backing it, even since 2011, has made heavy investments therein, & is hoping to yet break previous marks for tourist numbers & dollars they bring in, in the coming years.

"Nov 29, 2012...Tourist arrivals and expenditures are rising globally despite the down economy, and in order to further spur economic growth the Singapore government is continuing its efforts to market the country as a top travel destination.

"...In Singapore, the numbers are also encouraging. A total of 7.1 million visitors came to Singapore in the first half of the year, representing an 11% increase from last year. Tourist spending in that period, which amounted to S$11.5 billion, also increased by 7% year-on-year."

"...Since tourism is one of the important pillars of the Singapore economy, world-class attractions are opening even as the year is already coming to a close."

http://www.guidemesingapore.com/blog-po ... ies-abound

As to overpopulation, traffic congestion & too many foreigners in SG, travelling foreigners on any given day (about 100K) are only a tiny percent of the total number of foreigners in SG. Personally i almost always walk to wherever i'm going, & on occasions i use taxis it's during non peak hours, thereby not contributing to the problem.

"The problem is that Singapore is not only a small country, but also a densely populated one. Nonetheless, if you want to have smooth traffic flow, the solution is simple: either (a) build more roads or (b) reduce the number of vehicles."

http://singaporeaspirations.blogspot.sg ... rship.html

NB: Those examples you gave above, that haven't updated with us? They probably have egg on their faces and are back in their home countries now. That's why we don't hear from them. Nobody likes to brag and then have to come back and eat crow.

Can't say that i noticed any bragging. Just people asking a question, getting the answers they were seeking & moving on with their life. Probably more likely to return if they had something to whine or complain about than give a happy travelling report. Probably not concerned about what others think about them on an anonymous forum full of strangers & only 5 posts, all in one thread. If it were a million posts & they practically lived online then maybe "loss of face" would be more likely to be an issue.

OH, one other thing. I did it as well. Came in for 28 days on a 30 day visa and went away for a month. I did this for around 9 years during the 1980's. Was easy back then. I worked in the offshore oil fields. But there were lots of us back then and a good sized chunk of us has local wives and kids as well, but we couldn't get a EP or PR as we didn't actually work in Singapore. However, back in those days, ICA was a lot more forgiving and they knew we were spending the money here.

What's to forgive when there are no rules now, except the one that says to leave for 5 days before returning after a 90 day visit? In fact, BTW, there are even recent reports of first world passport holders skipping over to Malaysia for a day or two and returning to SG for another 90 days, no questions asked. So almost a free pass into SG for 6 months straight. Much better than a mere 30 days in & out in the 1980's, don't you agree?

Leo, hats off to you for following our advice and searching the board for other relevant threads. IMO The main conclusion to be drawn is: YMMV - it's just not possible for us to predict with any long-term accuracy how successful or otherwise you will be.

I understand no one can see into the future 5 or 10 years down the road. The Singapore economy could go down the drain & immigration start handing out 180 day free passes to visitors instead of the 90 days they do now. At this point i'm mainly just thinking about the next trip after 90 days here & coming back in a month or two to stay 60-90 days more. From all the evidence i've seen so far, i think it should be a piece of cake. If anyone suggested i might be denied entry & deported, i'd have a one word reply: ridiculous.

"In a country with almost no natural resources, Singapore is betting on tourism for long-term economic success."

http://www.economywatch.com/world_econo ... eeded.html

"Singapore's economy starts to choke on Indonesia smoke"

"If the number of tourist visitors fall sharply even for several months, this will hurt Singapore's GDP numbers for the third quarter of 2013," Biswas said.

"...He noted that such a decline would come at a time when Singapore's manufacturing sector, a traditional pillar of the trade-driven economy, is hurting from weak orders, particularly for electronics products, from its main markets the United States and Europe.

"...Southeast Asia's worst haze crisis took place in 1997-1998, causing widespread health problems and costing the regional economy billions of dollars as a result of business and air transport disruptions."

http://www.rappler.com/business/31851-s ... my-tourism

"SINGAPORE, March 23 (Reuters) - Singapore hopes to attract up to 10 percent more visitors this year, Second Minister for Trade and Industry S Iswaran said on Friday, helped by an increase in cruise tourism."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/ ... SD20120323

[ecureilx]

...

When you started equating Singapore wanting more tourists as the reason for allowing longer stay - I lost your line of thought

The longer the tourists stay, the lesser they spend .. if not, why would SQ and all run Stopover-Singapore promos for upto less than 7 days ? they could say 'forever' right ??

[sundaymorningstaple]

"...In Singapore, the numbers are also encouraging. A total of 7.1 million visitors came to Singapore in the first half of the year, representing an 11% increase from last year. Tourist spending in that period, which amounted to S$11.5 billion, also increased by 7% year-on-year."

The average stay in Singapore by a tourist is 3.5 days, if I'm not mistaken. So given that, they had an 11 % increase of visitors but only a 7% increase in spending by those visitors, so Singapore is losing money and gained increased strain on the infrastructure at the same time.

Frankly, I really no longer have a clue at to what you are on about now as you are willy-nilly cherry picking quotes by various people over various points just to satisfy yourself.

As I said before, Good Luck, I think you are going to need a healthy dose of it. You have convinced yourself, now all you have to do is convince a skeptical ICA.

[ecureilx]

Frankly, I really no longer have a clue at to what you are on about now as you are willy-nilly cherry picking quotes by various people over various points just to satisfy yourself.

^^ This .. I like

[Leo99]

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.

if not, why would SQ and all run Stopover-Singapore promos for upto less than 7 days ? they could say 'forever' right ??

Certainly not because they think a 7 day tourist will spend more than if they stay 14, 30, or 90 days.

Moreover, how would it look if they offered 90 days & immigration only gave the visitor 30 or less. Seven days is probably a safe bet, not only re immigration but how long the vast majority of visitors to SG want to/usually stay, that is, 0-7 days. I read almost 75% stay 3 days or less, so it would be a higher percentage who visit SG for only 0-7 days & a very low number that stay longer than that.

With most people (75%) staying only up to 3 days, if they can dangle a carrot (the promo) & get them here for 4-7 days instead, then SG will probably make more money. So it would entice tourists to stay longer in Singapore.

"The average time has been cited as 4 days. Thats a result of how Singapore is sold - typically as a stopover destination on the way to or from elsewhere."

http://www.tripadvisor.in/ShowTopic-g29 ... apore.html

The average stay in Singapore by a tourist is 3.5 days, if I'm not mistaken. So given that, they had an 11 % increase of visitors but only a 7% increase in spending by those visitors, so Singapore is losing money and gained increased strain on the infrastructure at the same time.

I wonder how an "increase in spending" by tourists equates to SG "losing money"?

Frankly, I really no longer have a clue at to what you are on about now as you are willy-nilly cherry picking quotes by various people over various points just to satisfy yourself.

I thought it was self explanatory. Another poster (Mi Amigo) summed it up well:

"From what I've read and heard over the years, there is a clear distinction made by the authorities between 'frequent visitors' and 'residents'. Clearly your desire is to stay in the former category..."

As I said before, Good Luck, I think you are going to need a healthy dose of it. You have convinced yourself, now all you have to do is convince a skeptical ICA.

Does this reference to luck concern staying 6 months a year in SG over any particular period of time, or to lesser durations annually like 1-5 months or 1-4 weeks? What would your advice be to forum readers interested in knowing how many days a year they can visit SG without needing any luck, but having plenty of skill, knowledge, wisdom, preparation, dough & a preferred passport?

It seems according to another poster on this site 3 months in every 9 months is acceptable for people with 3rd world passports to visit SG. IOW an average of 4 months every year. Do you concur? And that (1) having a first world passport, (2) staying at a hotel instead of freeloading at grandmas & (3) being able to prove you are not working puts you in a superior position where there is a reasonable chance of being allowed in for longer periods a year than even that?

http://forum.singaporeexpats.com/ftopic ... ight=visit

As to immigration being "skeptical" of something (which you didn't explain), would a suitcase full of $100 US bills be sufficient to "convince" them that you have sufficient funds for a 30-90 day visit, or are they not bright enough to realize that? What kind of convincing do they require? In Thailand pension documents indicating a regular and sufficient income are accepted as evidence towards obtaining a retirement visa. Would immigration be interested in seeing something like that, or more focused on mindlessly stamping you with another 90 days while babe watching & day dreaming about various dishes in Geylang?

When was the last time, recently or in the 1990's, a US or first world passport holder was asked a question (besides do you want candy) or had a serious issue with immigration as it relates to this topic? Can you provide a single report of such from this website? If so, please post the url. Thanks and good luck with that. I'll take a wild guess & say you'll need a "healthy dose".

"I, and many of our ''friends'' on this forum, have visited Singapore many, many times for years, and STILL love the place."

"Personally I wouldn't dream of visiting Singapore for less than a month, It's a hell of a trip from Yorkshire to Singapore for less than a month, but I'm retired and can afford the time, others visit for 10 days at a time, some for longer."

http://www.tripadvisor.in/ShowTopic-g29 ... apore.html

[AngMoG]

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.

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

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.