<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Require long-term PRs to take up citizenship
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to the letters by Mr Eduard Tay ('Permanent residents - Why are these Phase 2C children given an equal chance in Primary 1 registration?', last Thursday), Mrs Sweta Agarwal ('Primary 1 places - We too have a right to give our children the best education', last Friday) and Mr Jimmy Loke ('The PR difference', last Saturday).
I agree with Mrs Agarwal for the most part, but she should understand that citizenship comes with its privileges. I am sure that in her own country, she would expect no less from the government.
She should also understand that good schools are but one of the many benefits offered by Singapore, and that her decision to live here should not be determined solely on the premise of getting places in good schools for her children.
Mr Loke indicates that Mr Tay's child does not have the option of going elsewhere to find a good school. Singaporeans today can emigrate to many countries around the world because of Singapore's good reputation. And many have.
To the question asked by Mr Loke on why Mrs Agarwal has not taken up citizenship, I have this suggestion: Require all permanent residents (PRs) who have lived here for 10 years or more to apply for citizenship, and remove some or all privileges accorded to them should they fail to do so. This forces PRs to think carefully about whether they feel they belong in Singapore.
Anecdotally, I have found that PRs who have lived here for five years or more tend to stay, as within that timeframe they would have sunk their roots here - perhaps they have married a Singaporean, their children are reluctant to leave, they have taken loans that are not easily settled, or they have simply grown to like the country.
The reasons that bring people from other countries to Singapore are the same reasons that make Singaporeans leave for other countries.
So perhaps in determining how Singapore treats its PRs, Singaporeans should consider how they would like to be treated if they were PRs in another country. And in seeking benefits, perhaps Singapore PRs should consider what sort of benefits they would accord to PRs in their own countries.
Such an approach may significantly narrow the gap in expectations between citizens and PRs.
Edwin Han
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to the letters by Mr Eduard Tay ('Permanent residents - Why are these Phase 2C children given an equal chance in Primary 1 registration?', last Thursday), Mrs Sweta Agarwal ('Primary 1 places - We too have a right to give our children the best education', last Friday) and Mr Jimmy Loke ('The PR difference', last Saturday).
I agree with Mrs Agarwal for the most part, but she should understand that citizenship comes with its privileges. I am sure that in her own country, she would expect no less from the government.
She should also understand that good schools are but one of the many benefits offered by Singapore, and that her decision to live here should not be determined solely on the premise of getting places in good schools for her children.
Mr Loke indicates that Mr Tay's child does not have the option of going elsewhere to find a good school. Singaporeans today can emigrate to many countries around the world because of Singapore's good reputation. And many have.
To the question asked by Mr Loke on why Mrs Agarwal has not taken up citizenship, I have this suggestion: Require all permanent residents (PRs) who have lived here for 10 years or more to apply for citizenship, and remove some or all privileges accorded to them should they fail to do so. This forces PRs to think carefully about whether they feel they belong in Singapore.
Anecdotally, I have found that PRs who have lived here for five years or more tend to stay, as within that timeframe they would have sunk their roots here - perhaps they have married a Singaporean, their children are reluctant to leave, they have taken loans that are not easily settled, or they have simply grown to like the country.
The reasons that bring people from other countries to Singapore are the same reasons that make Singaporeans leave for other countries.
So perhaps in determining how Singapore treats its PRs, Singaporeans should consider how they would like to be treated if they were PRs in another country. And in seeking benefits, perhaps Singapore PRs should consider what sort of benefits they would accord to PRs in their own countries.
Such an approach may significantly narrow the gap in expectations between citizens and PRs.
Edwin Han
