Former SMU economics lecturer has his Singapore PR application rejected
September 6th, 2010 | 
Author: A former economics lecturer at the Singapore Management University (SMU), Mr Peter Kriz has had his Singapore PR application rejected to which he wrote on his Facebook: “Denied PR. Too funny.”
Mr Kriz who graduated with a degree and armed with a PhD from two Ivy League universities in the United States had been an assistant economics professor at the SMU for seven years.
One would have thought that it would be a breeze for Mr Kriz to obtain Singapore PR since cleaners, construction workers, bus drivers, Chinese language teachers and even freelance prostitutes were given PRs easily in the past.
The Straits Times reported last year of a PRC teacher in a private school Zhang Yuanyuan who obtained her Singapore PR within two months of application though she did not have any special qualifications or skills.
Unlike some other countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada which used a “point system” to assess the suitability of PR applicants, Singapore does not appear to have a well-defined stringent set of criteria for foreigners seeking to apply for PR.
Not only is English proficiency not a pre-requisite for PR application, the income and occupations of the applicants do not matter much as well.
Being obsessed with maintaining and perpetuating its political hegemony over the entire nation, the ruling PAP may be more interested to get economic migrants who do not question their policies rather than real foreign talents who are independent-minded, critical and articulate.
Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.
Posted in Editorial
i so frustrated with all the negative comments. i was never confident in the alternative party. Buto i will give the benefit of the doubt to the alternaive voice this time round. So do not fail my faith
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I wonder if it had anything to do with his participating in online forums of a certain kind.
If not why would a highly qualified FT get his PR application rejected.
Ridiculous, Real Ft’s are rejected, whilst China Born “Techinicians” and India Born ” Telephone operaters” and Philipino “Clinic Attendants” are welcomed in with open arms!
It’s getting more and more ridiculous by the day !
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Mr Kriz must have stepped on PAP’s toes before.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I believe our government must have a well-defined set of PR Approval guidelines. The system here is clean and beyond question.Everything is objective and for the long-term good of Singapore. There is no way such PR applications can be used as a means for political control unless Mr Peter has got some undesirable criminal records – in which case, the reason should be given. So does Peter have any criminal records? Including possibly smaller ones like painting of gratiffis in public places, etc ?????
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
Obvious reason: he is not chinese…and will not fulfil old fart’s forecast that only a majority cheena population will work the magic here!!
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
another great example.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong is sending wrong signals again.
There is no two ways about this one – please let Singaporeans know if Mr Peter Kriz is a suitable PR candidate. Or do we have so much qualified people that we need to reject Mr Peter Kriz’s application?
Or is it because we have too many qualified people that we need now bus-drives, cleaners, construction workers, beer-girls, etc. that you have now re-classified these occupations as “talents”?
Or is this a ‘knee-jerk’ reaction?
Whatever it is, you are sending wrong signals. Please do your job with proper diligence especially when you take the million-dollar salary.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
A friend of mine, whom own a business with many employees from overseas, told me that to obtain PR is easy, they just have to apply online when they’re still in their country, and sure to get approval as long as they’re graduate.
Yes, a PR status even before they’ve stepped foot on Sg soil.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh the irony, a washed out villager gets PR while a lecturer gets rejected.
Only in Singapore.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Racial quota, perhaps?
Meritocracy my ass.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If he is from China or India, he would get his PR without much hassles. Smart guys and REAL talents like him who may one day become a “troublemaker” in the eyes of you-know-who in the future is considered too risky.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Aiyah, he must have done some research and discovered that Sinkie’s economy, GDP, CPF, HDB is one gigantic Ponzi scheme. PAPies kicked him out before he can do more research or start telling common folks of his findings.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000590960801
This Peter Kriz is a friend of Kenneth Jeyaretnam.. of couse Wong Kan Seng won’t approve his PR lah!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In my other letter, same thing happened to my BF. He was let off cos boss wants to replace him with a cheap PRC at less than half his pay. Low wages = Cheap quality!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So sick ! I want my Election Now !!!!!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
we need more of this kind of PRs and less of those from PRC who come here and kah-kui-kui, tan dua lui. millister Gan Boh Yong wont geddit lah, just vote his hapless party out when elections come.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why complain again? it’s just an independent individual case at all!
Your gov surely has its regulations and standards as well as the rights to grant or reject a foreigner’s PR application. High educational background is just an advantage, but not a guarantee, understand?
If an applicant has historic record of demerit,crime commitment,violent speech, anti-social behaviors, severe disease…surely he will be denied.
Before you outcry here, contact Mr.Rejected and know why.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
I know of this young Quanzhou girl of 14yrs studying in one of the neighbourhood schools.Sometime last year, she told me she was very,very happy that she got her PR. I was taken aback as she was only a Pri 4 student! Then I asked what about her parents,since she was a minor. I got another surprise when she said her mum who was a housewife, should be getting hers in 6mths’time. Unbelievable! That’s uniquely PAP!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
A friend of mine married a korean lady who is a graduate. she also has a good HR job in Singapore but had her PR application delayed and dragged for a long time. not sure why, especially since she is a graduate with a proper job married to a singaporean.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is how you create an “intellectual class”, of course. It’s full of Chinese and Indians, as they said. Not people from the Western world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Dang!!!:
September 6, 2010 at 10:29 am
DO YOURSELF A BIG FAVOUR, DON’T FART RUBBISH ON THIS BLOG.
IF THERE IS A FRAMEWORK OF TRANSPARENT EVALUATION CRITERIA, IT WOULD BE SUPPORTED BY A LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF STATUTORY LAW AND INFRASTRUCTURE OF INSTITUTION TO APPEAL AND CONTEST THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO REJECT AN APPLICATION
AUSTRALIA HAS GOT THE MIGRATION ACT 1958. It sets out the law of rights and obligations of the applicant and provide the legal channel to appeal even against ministerial discretion as well.If someone is rejected outside the criteria in public records or someone has a criminal record, it will be exposed in the review tribunal.
The tribunal of independent minds, outside the Government’s structure including Immigration Department, has the power to ORDER that the “incorrect” decision of the Department or the Minister be set aside and BE SUBSTITUTED by a favourable decision in favour of the unjustly aggrieved applicant.
The Minister has the option to fight it out in the Court up to the High Court of Australia if he or she thinks he/she can win the case on question of facts and on law interpretation.
Mohamed Haneef is one case of alleged “terrorist” background where the Government lost the case in the Full-Bench of the Federal Court and the High Court of Australia, and Mr. Haneef was ex-parte in both instances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhamed_Haneef
DOES SINGAPORE HAS ONE FOR TRANSPARENT AND PUBLIC ASSESSMENT OF ITS IMMIGRATION SELECTION CRITERIA??
Until then, please keep your greenhouse gas where it shouold be firmly and politely locked in the original place where the sun don’t shine of the truth.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
“Being obsessed with maintaining and perpetuating its political hegemony over the entire nation, the ruling PAP may be more interested to get economic migrants who do not question their policies rather than real foreign talents who are independent-minded, critical and articulate.”
Exactly!!!!!
How else can a bus driver get citizenship but an economics lecturer be denied getting PR.
“New citizen and bus driver Sagadevan Krishan, 50, who is originally from India……………”
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC100810-0000030/Prime-Minister-celebrates-National-Day-in-Teck-Ghee
It would certainly seem that they want sheep and not lions.
“(The ancient saying is) ‘an army of sheep led by a lion is stronger than an army of lions led by a sheep’. In other words, leadership is critical in battles; the leadership qualities, the courage and the ability and getting the team to follow you is crucial.”
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/01/17/sm-goh-an-army-of-sheep-led-by-a-lion-is-stronger-than-an-army-of-lions-led-by-a-sheep/
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@TanSP:
September 6, 2010 at 11:04 am
Thank you for enlightening.
Another reason to kick out the DESPICABLE PAP.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Like what I said everywhere.
The government needs stupid people to get PR, so that when elections come, these stupid people will really think that PAP is their saviour, and so PAP can’t lose.
This government frankly hates the real smart talents that Singapore really needs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
wow! PR application for a professor rejected huh?
this is very funny, if you compare it to the case of an ex-convict PR, one who is making less than $5,000 but jailed 3 years for violence. ICA may or may not revoke his status leh…
it seems that PAP is fully intent on consolidating its political power without regard to the actual calibre of immigrants.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Johnny Jazz:
September 6, 2010 at 12:08 pm
AN ECONOMIC TALENT MIGHT ASK DIFFICULT QUESTIONS OF ECONOMIC SOOTHSAYING IN THE POLITICAL CLASS WHICH CAN BE EMBARASSING OF NO LOGICAL EXPLANATION OR SUBSTANTIATION. Better get rid of “germ” before they germinates and propagates more intelligence economic thoughts.
Well, bus drivers? That is easy to handle. Arrest and charge “rowdy” pasengers if they are locals but if it is fopreigners, supply them with taxi fares to destination – courtesy of un-informed and unawared shareholders or tax-payer’s account of miscellaneous expenses.
But if they of certain nationality shout and march without a demonstration permit at MOM, pretend that THE ASSEMBLY AND PROTEST MARCH is all legal. LAWS HERE DON’T APPLY SOME TIME BUT FIRMLY APPLY IF YOU ARE THE “HOT FAVOURITES.” Have we not seen this before?
THE WHOLE IMMIGRATION WORKS-AND-JERKS IS A SHAM, SCAM AND SHAME IS THERE A BETTER DESCRIPT, ANYONE???.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i’ll provide more details of the PR status of this ex-convict PR when things are clearer later this month…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A CHINESE national was jailed for nine weeks on Friday for throwing two lighted match sticks at her lover’s fish farm and caused damage of more than $200,000.
Cleaner Liu Gui Ling, 37, a Singapore permanent resident, admitted to mischief at the fish farm at sea off Pasir Ris at about 2am on April 9.
A Community Court heard that the night before, Liu and her lover, Mr Goh Khoon Heng, 53, the fish farm owner, had a dispute over some financial and personal matters……..
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_462524.html
China cleaner gets PR but economics lecturer PR rejected????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ CHN PR Veteran:
September 6, 2010 at 11:36 am
You are dead wrong on this one. How do you know if Mr. Rejected was given a reason? It might just be silent because that decision may NOT be challenged in the court of law in Singapore unlike Australia. ICA just kept silent, what can Mr Rejected do? Or ICA might give him a “frivolous” reason – like we met our immigration quota or you not our (UNEXPLAINED) preferred target group of immigrant, how can Mr. Reject appeal against discriminatory “preference”
In Australia, it will go to the independent tribunal, teh Federal Court and finally the High Court and the Government must proved its substantial ground supporting that rejection that meets with STATUTORY LAW, and if the Minister as the defendant fails, the Applicant gets his PR – EVEN IF THE MINISTER IS UNHAPPY FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE.
In Singapore, no legal framework, so any dogs and cats can come in with false alibi and qualifications and experience. If I find someone who forged document an I report to Immigration, Mr. or Ms Successful WILL GET A FAIR HEARING IN THE COURTROOM AND THE DECISION IS THEN ALLOW OR RESCIND THE PR BASED ON QUESTION OF FACT AND QUESTION OF LAW.
It seems here is a case of fictional whimsical preference. Can you imagine a case of a MP assisting a foreigner with his/her PR application when it is a matter od law determination between the Applicant and Singapore as two “contracting” parties???.
In Australia, the MP could be charged for UNLAWFULLY dispensing or providing legal immigration advice unless he or she is a licensed migration agent doing it as a legitimate occupational or business pursuit. And if political weight or any undue influence is brought to bear upon the Immigration department to grant the PR application outside the defined criteria, A CASE OF CORRUPTION WILL EMERGE IN CRIMINAL LAW IN AUSTRALIA.
Immigration is purely a merit consideration between the Applicant and the State, no one outside the process should interfere in it and if decision is disagreed by the applicant, then it logically head into the courtroom for transparent public scrutiny and lawful determination.
Is this method NOT fair to both the Applicant and the state????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May be because he is not indian. Our immigration officers love indian.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Malaysian chinese working in my company (now closed down)and India indian I met during business used to show off to me that there are being INVITED to become citizen. They usually scoffed:”What is the point of becoming citizen ? There is no different between PR and citizen”. Those are the time I felt ashame of being Singaporean.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi!!! Please respect me,do not call me bus driver. I am a qualifed captain. You can call a person who drive TAXI is TAXI driver or “AHMAT”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We need to stop our immigration system from being abused… It should not be a system just to add more blind PAP supportors and to keep out the independent-thinking and real talented people.
A transparent points-based scoring system is needed.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@Dang!!!: September 6, 2010 at 10:29 am
“Everything is objective and for the long-term good of Singapore. There is no way such PR applications can be used as a means for political control unless Mr Peter has got some undesirable criminal records – in which case, the reason should be given. ”
*
With the Pro Alien Party declaring that Singapore IS the Pro Alien Party, and the Pro Alien Party IS Singapore – everything is objective and for the long-term good of the Pro Alien Party. Period.
When the Pro Alien Party makes the deliberate and elaborate efforts to fix the Singapore Constitution, the Legislations and Bye-Laws, the Electoral Systems, and resort to detailed electoral gerrymeandering – do you think that the Pro Alien Party will not use the IMMIGRATION POLICY as another POLITICAL TOOL to achieve its final goal of perpetuating its dominance in Singapore ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
obviously they don’t want these ang mohs armed with phDs.
1. less chance of them settling down in SG for good.
2. too smart. ang moh cannot control.
what else?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mr. Kriz reminds the PAP PARANIODS of Mr. Alan Shadrake. That
could be the reason why, Peter Kriz is not granted PR of Singapore!!
SINGAPORE IS DOOM AND GLOOM.
PAP SURE LOSE
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why should Mr. Kriz be entitled to a PR — unless PAP is confident that he will vote for PAP if and when he becomes a citizen?
Just like the Cultural Revolution in China, if you are too educated and intelligent, you get targeted for elimination.
They only give PRs to whores and uneducated peasants from China.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
He is a friend of Kenneth J.
Pro PAP= instant PR.
Anti PAP= wait long long.
All those talk about getting FT just boils down to one reason- to maintain PAP rule on the Singapore.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
…probably,he did not agree to be a GRASSTOOT like Sinha?
or,he contributed to TR?
or,he ‘FAKED’ his IVY-LEAGUED PHD?????
JUST MAYBE!
HE SHOULD HAVE FAKED AN INDIAN DEGRE,maybe from IIM ???
This guy is too smart to cheat!
his price- NO PR.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Those with PhDs in Law, Economics and/or political science are not welcome to become PRs, as they remind the PAPies too much of Shadrake, Chee SJ, and JBJ.
Those with Pri school education and willing to work at least 14 hours a day for faster cheaper wages are more than welcome to submit their applications. Preferably those who like to fuck and give birth to many future slaves, err I mean good obedient hardworking workers.
But make sure you don’t take more than 1 month maternity. Otherwise you lose job, that’s too bad. PAPies don’t believe in human rights or workers’ rights if they clash with GDP rights.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So FT was all a lie afterall.
It seems more & more lies are now being exposed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Peter Kriz obtained his doctoral degree in economics from the University of California Santa Cruz, his undergraduate and master degrees from Stanford and Harvard. So yes, he is highly qualified.
Perhaps this is because he was denied tenure at SMU, meaning that he failed to secure a permanent contract to continue as a faculty member. This is usual in academia, academics move around, and it is not surprising that there is a timing issue here. Had he applied for PR long before the tenure decision, getting one wouldn’t be a problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
LOL!! Maybe better to call Bus Commander — better even than those driving space shuttles.
Btw, fighter pilots in US also call themselves drivers. E.g. I’m an F16 driver while that guy drives an F15.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
there may be a conspiracy. china garmen has some agreements with PAP.
“if you don’t take some of my people, i will attack singapore! understand? dun play play with us!!’ anyway, singapore will ours in 20 years time as agreed in our secret treaty back in 1965.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mr. Kriz may have failed certain screening. Such as he
Visit TR and spoke against PAP
He said something against PAP
He did not join PAP like those parliar AH NEH
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i agree that our ICA should have more clearly defined and transparent framework of who gets PR status. unless of course there is a very good reason (which should be explained to us) why we shouldn’t have such a framework.
nevertheless, i wouldn’t jump to any conclusions about Mr Kriz. could be a whole host of really very good reasons why he was denied PR status.
i wonder about something though. if Mr Kriz had gotten his PR and posted on his facebook, would TR have written a very different article, also condemning the govt? or would TR have written an article praising the govt for making the right decision?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
it is funy most white folks get rejected while if you are chinese you sure get pr one. i guess this place will be a chinese and will be another hk for prc….hahaha….maybe pm and mm are acutally chinese spies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ An Academic:
September 6, 2010 at 5:27 pm
I cannot see how the merit of Dr Kriz application has relevance to his tenure. Even if he is no longer in SMU, couldn’t he be granted a PR and then later secured a position with GIC, Temasek, banking institutions in a relevant role to his skills and expertise. He is unlikely to be dependent on state welfare, if this ever existed in Singapore. Dr Kriz can only be a talent asset in Singapore, not a liability. Compared to generous heaps of praise on foreign bus driver in the national level in National Day speech, any comparison between Dr Kriz’s credential compared to the great virtue of bus driver looks awesome ironic of silly season of random far away thoughts unconnected with quality foreign intake into this country.
If talent is our selection criteria and Dr Kriz failed that “talent” assessment, who are those we have given PR approval in the last few years?
Wouldn’t we, in those exceedingly stringent critera, be flooded with PHDs and post-doctorals skill qualities instead of PR cleaners and those with only Diploma like Zhang Yan Yuan who then mocked our national pride in Beijing.?
Or maybe the “talent” is defined in terms of political palatable selection criteria of possible future voter-friendly assumptions potential?
Immigration influx impact on national landscape, economy, politics and future. Singaporean deserves to know what framework and criteria based on which who are allowed in and who are not.
Surprisingly, there are reported cases of repeated criminal offence among PRs, why are they NOT deported on criminal conviction? Or unless convicted ex-criminal are more “talented” then a talented academic with unblemished criminal record?
And for the record, Australia has a “character clause” in its immigration statutory law which allowed the Minister to cancel permanent residency rights and deport convicted criminals. Do we NOT have enough criminals of our own on our land needing to import more repeated offenders from abroad?
Dr Kriz’s case evident very serious and fundamental flaw in our immigration policy design and implementation. IT IS A NATIONAL ISSUE which commands the legitimate concerns of all citizenry.
Will the Minister offer a public explanation on the precise criteria of its immigration policy and allow independent audit of its faithful compliance from the opposition parties?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Again the whole issue is job related. It applies to academics, IT consultants, bus drivers, etc., where a PR application may fail if the applicant is out of job or loses employment before the application is complete.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Or is it related to his specialisation?
‘Economic Lecturer’… Perhaps he is exposed to too much insider info which could pose as a risk if he is accepted as a PR.. :/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Our Government is simply taking in more people to balance out the racial quota. Nice knowing that our communist inspired People Action Party trust these PRCs to fill the void than having people with the same values and culture as us to come here. This and their Zionist inspired greed is slowly destroying our country. SINGAPORE FOR SINGPOREANS! That is what all of us should be working for!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hmmm thats odd? Unless he didnt fulfill the criteria of renewing PR… It states that the last 12 months before expiry one must be employed, FULL-TIME…
Or just that he happened to be the scape-goats to reduce the intakes… Remember? last 2009 intake was 11.5% and YTD 2010 was only 1.5%…???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ An Academic:
September 6, 2010 at 8:14 pm
If that was the “rejection” criteria, it must be the dumbest of the dumbest public policy thinking in ICA’s immigration selection criteria. Does that “talent” in Dr Kriz disappear by virtue of lost of employment which could be for all other non-talented relevant reason i.e. a particular course or defined specialisation not to be offered in following semesters. Or if Dr. Kriz might be looking for a “sabbatical” of switching out of academic into commercial world? How is that imagined “talent lost” compared to a “talent” of a cleaner working (at the time of application for PR and decision determination)and thus receiving approval?. Someone like me could be a cleaner but I could not say I as a cleaner can understand introduction to economics lecture of Dr Kriz or another.
People can be in-between job for health or other family reasons as well and they became high-flier thereafter.
I think the Minister owes this nation an explanation of how and what selection criteria apply to immigration intake SINCE THEY CLAIMED TO BE TALENT BASE and not of other frivolous irrelevant considerations.
We need a framework that allow the Applicant to challenge the Minister’s decison in a lawful process like they have in Australia – accountable, transparent, efficient, effective and beneficial to national interest of economic development and politically bi-partisan of implementtion.
Surely, a cleaner can’t be of greater talent and contribution to Singapore as an economist in a bank, MAS, GIC, Temasek Holdings or even in his private business as an economic consultant to Government and private enterprises. Or is it?
SOMETHING IS DRASTICALLY WRONG WITH OUR IMMIGRATION SELECTION CRITERIA AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you are too smart, pap also don’t want you because like Dr Chee, he is smarter than Lee junior, so must destroy that person.Note ‘destroy’ is not kill the person.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Low Birthrate, bring in PRCs and what not… KTV Girls, Construction workers… here is a good candidate for re-production kenna rejected.. wth…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
‘GO SEE MP’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@An Academic:
September 6, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Again the whole issue is job related.
Right right… so the PAP is fine with giving third rate white-colloar workers a year to leech around to find a job, after which they get an instant PR. But actual Talents get denied PR status??? Give us a fucking break.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Maybe the PM is sharing the quotas with his friend, the Indian minister, that is why only Chinese from China and Indians from India are able to get PR. They kinda divide Singapore as they like with their own kind. To hell with the Malays!
I think the government should go for English classes because they are not able to understand the word ‘talent’. The angmoh was rejected because he could be a ‘threat’ to the Pappies one day whereas the bus drivers, construction workers, prostitutes from India and China are mostly the easily manipulated type.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
and more PRs will soon become citizens.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1079513/1/.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
PAP’s double-standard policy at play again.
Maybe they want to force this brilliant guy to take SG citizenship. But since he is so clever, i don’t think he want to become a Singaporean as he knows a few year down the road he is going to get screwed by the PAP by hook or by crook.
Ok la, better leave than stay in Singapore. Any first world country is also better than a self proclaim, fake-first world country like Singapore.
Those PRC people and India Ah-nehs who come here to look for a better living will soon realized they kena conned by PAP also, but by then it will be too late bcos they will in the process of being screwed front and back. Just like us Singaporean, for believing in PAP for too long.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I guess Kriz made a comment on RP’s facebook that might have resulted to his rejection.
http://img706.imageshack.us/f/kriz.jpg/
http://img375.imageshack.us/f/kriz2.jpg/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Crap, now I know for sure I’ll never be able to get PR. I’m American, young, and just finishing a diploma course and having a Singaporean mom and family (and even offered to do NS) here doesn’t help me at all get a PR or even make it easier getting an employment pass. If this guy can’t get it, I sure as hell can’t. Obviously, being half Singaporean doesn’t count because that half isn’t Chinese (since they’re so worried about the birth-rate and the ‘delicate’ racial quotas).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
it is has nothing to do with his credentials. he shouldnt tag TR and friend with Kenneth Jaya.
if he has joined the grassroot, it is almost an instant giveaway and probably featured in the papers that such talent has joined.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
People do not get it. We have to know what Singapore government wants in the country, or what Singapore as a country need.
Singapore needs a few real talents and a lot of middle class to continue to keep the country going and growing.
Just look at it this way, does Singapore needs people who has progressed to higher-middle class who “NEED” some quality of life or hungry lower to middle class who will strive to make life better.
Singaporeans are not less hungry or less striving, simply, Singaporeans have progressed, but the country has not, and the country needs cheaper and hungrier work force.
Therefore, a lot Singaporeans have lost their relevance, while the hungrier PRCs and others have filled the void.
So, people like me, will only have to bear with it and accept the new era. However, whatabout our children?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Peter did lose his job. He didn’t publish well and hence wasn’t tenured. That is part of being an academic. Whether the law was silly to deny him PR is another issue and I certainly agree that discretion must be exercised. If Peter was serious about becoming PR, he could have applied for one much earlier. After all, his first contract is 8 years and that would give him plenty of time to commit himself which he didn’t.
My point is, there is an objective reason for rejecting his PR application. He wasn’t on sabbatical. He was out of job. What some of you are clamoring here is the exercise of subjective judgement when applying an objective rule, which is a different matter and of course one that I am sympathetic towards.
But we know how black and white things work here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ An Academic:
September 6, 2010 at 8:14 pm
@ Andrew Chen:
September 6, 2010 at 10:00 pm
@true-blue singaporean:
September 7, 2010 at 2:54 am
Now that the dust cloud is clearing, @ An Academic, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THE DECISION TO REJECT DR. KRIZ’S APPLICATION WAS NOT POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED?
If it was, did that decision made was really in the best interest of this country and not an instance of “abuse of office” or “abuse in office” or “otherwise wrong” in Administrative Law application, and by definition of that, in fact UNLAWFUL?
Do we have a proper legal fraemwork and infrastructure for lawful appeal, public scrutiny of unlawful administrative decisions in migration implementation, and a channel for statutory law appeal to overcome an inequitable, unjust and perhap unreasonable decision or simply a denial of natural justice against the Applicant and ultimately against the interests of all Singaporeans?
Immigration is too important a NATIONAL AND PUBLIC POLICY to play fire with any partisan politics input I believe. There should be public consultation and consensus on broad immigration parameters on who we shall accept and who we shall refuse instead of blanket lie and deception of a “rose-by-any-name” bullshit of “talent import” mirage when the UNDISCLOSED definition of FICTIONAL “talent” has NOTHING TO DO WITH OCCUPATIONAL SKILLS AND ECONOMIC BENEFIT RELEVANCE CONSIDERATION TO NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
The venomous snake of truths in foreign migration intake must NOT have hidden agenda detrimental to the economic well-being and future development of this country.
We can’t afford to take in cleaners, bus drivers and repeat offender criminals in when land are so scare and the costs of infrastructural support to sustain a population overload is prohibitively expense – such as $60 billion to put in new MRT lines and $1 billion just to upgrade signalling system in just one or two lines. THEY ADD NEGATIVE CONTRIBUTION TO OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND FUTURE WELL BEING.
A CAN OF WORMS IS NOW OPENED IN DR KRIZ FAILED PR APPLICATION, Do anyone disagree? Can Singaporeans trust this Government’s public pronouncements on immigration policy, size intake, quality control and the political chicanery in the whole black magic show?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ivy League PhD get rejected for PR, then what is a Foreign Talent? If he is not serious about becoming PR, he applied for what? He is more permanent resident than some.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I didn’t say if his PR rejection wasn’t politically motivated. Maybe it was, I don’t know. Fact remains, Peter could have made his PR application much earlier which he didn’t. Perhaps he was too busy. Perhaps becoming a PR reduces the financial benefits that are used to attract foreign academics in the first place.
I can go on speculating but some issues are quite black and white. If he had been a productive academic, then this would not have happened. He would have been tenured, host of other universities would be lining up to get his signature, but this didn’t happen. And he is leaving academia probably for good. In short, without evidence of permanent employment, a foreigner will have much difficulty obtaining a PR.
I am sympathetic towards him by the way. He is a great guy, but that said, why didn’t he apply for PR earlier? While I think it is silly to let him go, but we do have to question his commitment to stay in SG on a more permanent basis.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Let me add. Who knows whether the rejection was politically motivated, but what we do know is, this discussion about his PR certainly is.
I mean, it is just a PR application. Really it is. There are plenty of people in the global job market who are keen and willing to come to SMU. No one is indispensable, economics PhDs as myself included.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Very strange that a cleaner can get PR status but not a PHD holder. Perhaps, the PHD holder is not a talent afterall. But the cleaner is. And the cleaner is contributing more by keeping our country clean and green. if this is true, it is absolutely absurd.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
yes, funny how the ‘Party’ splash out PR acceptance to even FT hookers yet be stingy to those who could really help our society
back to main topic:
could it has to do with his country of origin?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have to agree on the issue of transparency with regards to immigration policy. I too was an assistant Prof in Singapore (Australian with PhD in Business from UK). I decided to move to Singapore because i meet and married a Singaporean in Australia. After many years working and living in Australia we decided to move to Singapore to be near my aging in-laws. In the 7yrs i worked at NTU, i applied for to become a PR (Mind you with the aim of making a family and life in Singapore) three times and was rejected on all three occasion. I tried to seek an explanation for my rejections every time, but was met with stiff responses from the authorities eg, please apply at a later date.
Whats worse is that during my time at NTU i attended several PR parties for staff from PRC, who got their PR within 6-12mnths of arriving in SG. At the end we caved in and returned to Australia, which i was subsequently able to get my in-laws PR in Australia.
I let people be the judge about transparent immigration policies after telling them my story. For once i say – don’t vote PAP out, instead, do as Australian politicians suggest ‘Keep the BASTARDS HONEST’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Seems the PAP is not Pro-Alien Party after all ….Not all foreign talent is welcomed….bottom line criteria : will this guy/gal vote for me? If too smart, no need him/her – potential trouble maker….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is where we get our “foreign talents”:
BEIJING, Sept 6, 2010 (AFP) – China said Monday it was investigating its commercial pilots’ qualifications amid revelations more than 200 of them lied on their resumes.
The probe comes after 42 people died on August 24 when a Brazilian-made jet flown by Henan Airlines crashed at a small airport in northeastern China’s Heilongjiang province.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Allow me to tell you my story:
I came to Singapore in 1996 with my father who had a good job with an MNC here with my two brothers. My father at age 48 got his PR and we all became second genration PRs. All three of us did NS (enlisted in Feb 1998), went to normal local schools, went to local universities (myself under a teaching scholarship) and I applied for citizenship the moment I finished NS.
It was rejected, but I was expected to do reservist. Go figure. No I did not go to DB in army. Hell I didn’t even serve any extras because I was really scared of my teaching scholarship being revoked. The only punishment I got in NS was 2 confinements for losing my 11B! I graduated from SISPEC, went to combat unit and did my two and a half years. Despite my serving NS, being on an MOE scholarship to be a teacher and finishing my degree (had disrupted from NS to go to NUS), I was not given citizenship. Both my brothers who finished NS got their pink ICs quickly enough after that, even without a degree. I had to wait for 3 years.
It felt then that I had been stabbed in the back, that Singapore expects me to die for it, but doesn’t treat me like a Singaporean. I reapplied again after three years and this time I managed to get citizenship. When asked for a reason the person said ‘oh there was something wrong with the clearance the last time’. Apparently my political views (which back then were somewhat on the maverick side) and my website (closed in 2003) had come under the radar of the government who saw me probably as a minor irritant.
For those here who post with hate, not every foreigner who comes here is ‘trash’. We came here in 1995, as employment pass and dependent pass holders and we always tried to see ourselves as Singaporean, and unlike those who come here only to enjoy the fruits of a liberal immigrant policy, we stayed loyal. My father was an active volunteer in the Community Centre and Senior Citizens Committee. My brother runs a photography business and my youngest brother is also a teacher. I am married to a beautiful ‘born’ Singaporean woman who is the daughter of a taxi driver but went on to get an ASTAR scholarship to study in America. We call ourselves Singaporean because we love Singapore and are proud to be Singaporeans. We are Singaporeans of Indian ethnicity, and proud of both. Why do you call us ‘trash’? Not all of us are pro-PAP bootlickers, not all of us are fair weather friends and not all of us are treated special.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ An Academic:
September 7, 2010 at 10:06 am
Citizenry has compelling apprehension that Peter Kriz’S PR application rejection is politically-motivated but this discussion is NOT, except perhaps you.
Being concerned about unexplicable contradictions of undefined “talent” and expression thereof in public discussion forum like TR is debating about national migration and NOT politically-motivated discussion. The onus is on ICA to prove otherwise.
If you are a top grade economic PHD academic, you would be “politically correct” to ask how much is needed to spend in infrastructure costs to sustain an irrelevant immigration intake relative to tax income contribution benefit accueing to this nation.
If the income tax revenue of a cross-sectional spread of 5 million people in Singapore is S$6 billion a year as media report suggest. Adding another 1.5 million could be, by simplistic extrapolation, bring in a tax benefit annualized by perhaps an incremental gain of $1.8 billion ( $7.8 billion minus $6 billion). If you add only $1.8 billion a year into national coffers for an additional 1.5 million immigrants, how many years does it take to recoup the costs of $60 billion in MRT lines alone? My calculation says 35 years!!!! So when you add up the other infrastructure costs like hospitals, schools, road, airport, land reclamation, even sewage and incinerator plants, utilities, the payback might be over 100 years. Do these migrants live 100 years and paying tax to cover these costs paid out of our national savings of your and my contributions?
Mr. Academic, it is ECONOMIC, NOT POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED OF THIS DISCUSSION. POLITICS PERHAPS EXISTS IN YOUR MIND WHEN YOU CLAIMED THAT DR KRIZ EMPLOYMENT STATUS WAS RELEVANT CONSIDERATION WHICH YOU CAN’T AFFIRM AND WHICH THE CONTRIBUTION COMMENT OF ANDREW CHEN SEEMS TO HAVE CONVINCINGLY REFUTE OF UTTER HYPOCRISY.
I am impressed by your comments here BUT NOT EXTREMELY IMPRESSED OF THE POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED SLANT THAT SEEMS TO INVADE YOUR INPUT IN THIS DISCUSSION.It is YOU who AFFIRMATIVELY assert a political input in this discussion.
I AM INTERESTED IN THE ECONOMICS AND THE SOCIAL COSTS OF CRIMES, AND GENERAL SOCIETAL DEGENERATION OF LAW AND ORDER MAINTENANCE WHEN THOSE OF A MUCH “LOWER TALENT” GRADE IMPORTS LIKE CLEANERS ARE BROUGHT INTO THIS COUNTRY BEHIND THE ANONYMITY AND FALSE ILLUSION OF FOREIGN TALENT migration BUT ADDING ONLY TO CRIMES HERE.
DO YOU STILL NOT SEE MY ANGLE OF ECONOMICS, NOT POLITICS IN THIS DISCUSSION??. AS A DISTINGUISHED PHD CALIBRE TALENT LIKE YOURSELF, I AM DISAPPOINTED THAT YOU HAVE NOT VOLUNTEERED A PRODUCTIVE ECONOMIC RELEVANCE AND IMPORT INTO THIS IMMIGRATION DISCUSSION.
I did community work in Sydney and do come accross many immigration cases needling translation work and have learn about some Australian immigration laws. I am interested in this law aspects and have touched on them in this blog – how is law necessarily politically-motivated?
Other than that, I have no strong positive skills in economics to add. You can enliven this discussion from your field of expertise in economics of apparent negative contributions? As for academic intellect, just assume that I FAILED REPEATEDLY MY KINDERGARTEN LEAVING EXAMINATIONS, THANK YOU!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Not True Pro-Alien Party:
September 7, 2010 at 11:48 am
If you are so fond of Pro-Alien Party and AngMoh arse go lick their arses dry
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think you misread my post lah…where I got say I fond of Pro-Alien Party : what I try to said “is not all Foreign Talent is welcome – only those who are daft and will vote for Pro-Alien Party la…Clever ones – like those who posted here – get rejected.
Why you so like dat – no need to be rude one la……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Did anyone considered maybe this Doc didn’t get renewal of contract by SMU? With no confirmed long term employment to show, his PR application may be rejected. I have come across such practise but not in SMU.
Of course, if that is the case, then question of why SMU decided to terminate him, etc…. etc… Understand that place is quite political, with listening walls – there are always more than one way to skin a cat.
PS: maybe he provided the logistic support to Oliver Flicker. So not desirable by garhem. Out with him!!! Ha, ha, ha…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Eye of the Beholder
Some countries see Talents very differently
In Britian, they see Nurses as important Talents but in Singapore they are consider cheap skills with low academics qualifications
Britian try to lure Singapore Nurses…but Singapore push em” back
In Austriala, Europe and USA, the occupation that made big bucks are plumbers. Do you consider these as important skills???
While their leturers PhDs missile scientist lost their jobs wandering in the streets, b’cos Washington decided to “cut military budget” What is important skills???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There is no doubt that immigration policy has got nothing to do with our slow population growth nor lack of talent.
IT ALL ABOUT GETTING FAVOURABLE VOTES!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ anonymous:
September 7, 2010 at 12:55 pm
I don’t think I understand if your comments are about economics. Even if SG populates itself with 1.5m PHDs, the existing infrastructure will still be stretched in the short run. Although important, I thought that the discussion wasn’t about economics. Rather, we are drawn by apparent observation that PRCs and South-east Asians are getting PRs more easily than highly skilled migrants like Peter Kriz.
My point is, one doesn’t need political motivation for something like this to happen. It may be politically involved (I cannot see why this is so), but it is not required to deny Peter a PR in this case. He doesn’t have a job with SMU after his contract ends. Trust me, it is not easy for PHDs to find a job that specifically requires PHD-relevant skills. The job market in SG is very small. If SMU denies a tenure application (the process itself is not transparent), it is likely the same is true for NUS and NTU. So an unsuccessful academic (whether Singaporean or not) will have to leave the country and look for positions elsewhere.
We have to ask ourselves, should an unemployed migrant be granted PR?
If SG grants PR to a soon-to-be unemployed PHD, that may come across as unfair to some. It creates a signal that a migrant doesn’t necessarily have to be presently (and permanently) employed before qualifying for permanent residence, just evidence of some qualifications will do.
We need to make like comparisons. That is, compare an unemployed PHD migrant with an unemployed migrant having lower skills. If SG were to offer PR to a trained bus driver arriving from PRC without a job and deny Peter a PR, then clearly there is some profiling issues here.
Our whole immigration system is far from perfect and the immigration criteria should certainly be more transparent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ An Academic:
September 7, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Sir, your last line of comment is correct and I am in ASBOLUTE AGREEMENT.
Looking at some raw numbers I proposed, the whole immigration public policy had no economic justification. It will costs (now estimated) $60 billion to add a few MRT lines to existing network. How can the payback in future revenue of income tax sensibly justify this kind of infrastructural costs to sustain immigration influx? I am assuming 35 years of CONTINUOUSLY economically useful life when the average migrant could already be 25 years or even much older now. They work continuously for 35 years to reach 60 in a world scare of jobs, resources and contraint economic growth opportunities?
And this costs of just additional MRT lines must go up much higher than budgeted – one only has to look at how fast base metal prices have shot up in recent years. Supply constraints and higher global demand will force it much higher at accelerating rate. What happen to the payback period – 70 years???
Throw in other infrastructural costs of hospitals, utilities, reservoir construction, land reclamations, schools, roads, parking lots, industrial factory spaces, multi-layer overhead expressways like Shanghai etc and publicly-touted talk of underground tunnelling transport/living network and nuclear power station, the costs will come to BIG hundreds of billions.
Who is paying for all these? What is the marginal returns relative to marginal costs – the economics must stacked impossibly against any further escalation of migration influx even if 1.5 million PHDs are added to our talent pool.
If you read recent report of Germany decided to extend the operating lives of current nuclear power plants instead of new builds, they know the impossible logic of economics of construction costs risks escalation – forget the environmental lobby screamings. Canada have shelved a number of newbuilds after financial feasibility studies. Despite the desperate need for oil, US has only build one new nuclear power station in the last 35 years!! The world steeply experienced in nuclear power energy use is turning its back on costly and dangerous nuclear power – a lot to do with construction and operating economics, we still heading that way forced unnecesarily by our dubious immigration intake policy???.
If we want quality immigrant as PR and citizens, we could and only consider taking people that measure up to the calibre of “yourself and Dr Kriz” in different fields – not the “quality” of the kind the law caught up with in the field of crimes or at least minimal value-added input to our economy and nation’s future.
Infrastructural costs, land constraints and sheer economic pressures of payback, risk return calculations in rational economic put a lot on premium on quality people – employed currently or temporary unemployed. Their skills don’t disappear by virtue of being “in-between” jobs. The policy application in this regard is fundamentally flawed.
The tragic thing is that we only get to read “politically correct” publishing in the media the virtue of migration intake applying false parameters of quantitative measure without a single idea of future costs and revenue impact.
Who can really know the costs of underground tunnelling when the geotechnical risks is unknown of weak geological make-up and stability. Geologists familiar with gold-mining will recall easily a project by Austindo Resources in Chibailiung had costs overruns multifolds for the last 100 metres of decline access to the orebody. A deep underground gold-copper mine in Tasmania was recently flooded from underground water seepage through fine hairline cracks in the rock ( not discovered in exploration drilling) at the rate exceeding 60 cubic. metres in one second. That is a lot faster than the flood water accumulated in Orchard Road floods. When this happens and if it happen in Singapore underground tunnelling ( we are surrounded by water), what would be the containment costs be like after half the tunnelling is done??
IMMIGRATION POLICY IS A BIG FAILURE IN SINGAPORE WITHOUT A FRAMEWORK. My point is that if we must have limited immigration intake, IT MUST BE THE CALIBRE EQUALS TO CLOSE TO THE TALENT CALIBRE OF DR KRIZ, YOURSELF AND THOSE WHOSE “VALUED-ADDED” WAY EXCEEDING THE RISKS AND COSTS OF SUSTAINING AND SUPPORTING A HUGE OVERPOPULATION.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you act to be a smart alex and go against the govt here, you will never get it. You must proof to be a guai guai boy and said die die you will help PAP to get votes by brainwashing your students in SMU.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
anonymous:
September 7, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Well, there are many undesirable consequences of a non-sustainable immigration policy and it is clear that our leaders are running out of growth options!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If unemployed = no PR, then what about a PR convict serving jail years of jail sentence? Shouldn’t the PR of these ex-cons be stripped?!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
if he sign up job with sbs, he will get PR in 2 months. ang moh always like to talk big. PAP don’t like. PAP like humble workers who can work 14 hours a day and give birth to at least 2.1 children, and will become SG citizen, vote for them, don’t complain, take less pay, give money to charity,
he fit into any of these? i don’t think so…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As an undergraduate at SMU who had the privilege of being taught Economics under Dr. Peter Kriz, I’m extremely appalled by the Government’s frivolous decision to deny his PR application.
Dr. Kriz is an extremely qualified Economics professor with profound knowledge and extensive research insights on monetary policies and macro-economic development. He was a friendly and helpful Professor who had an open-door policy towards his students and was able to relate and adapt well to the Singapore culture and environment (based on his story-telling of daily encounters during lessons).
It’s ridiculous that an extremely insightful and highly experienced Professor like Dr. Kriz can be denied off his PR application, while hopeless PRC and India migrants with little experience and affection for the country can have their PR approved.
The PAP seems rather biased towards letting in CHINA migrants and those with little talent. Is this what our Foreigh Talent Policy has come to? The government has to stop operating in a Communist Fashion! We are suppose to be a Democratic Republic, not a Dictatorship or Communist Regime!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Seriously… How does the government decides on PRs holders??? Do they only count chinese who work as bus drivers, dish washers,etc as foreign talent? I mean Professor Peter Kriz here is really a foreign talent, and he had contirbuted to our society by imparting knowledge to the younger generation who are about to enter the workforce, and yet he is rejected from a PR ownership.
Can the government please be more transparent? It is no use if guidelines are stated, and when a person qualifies, they are rejected.
I think the government should show the clear statistics on who are the people getting PR for the past 3 to 5 years, like this Singaporeans can have a better understanding.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0