Canadian PR

[winnipegjets]

Whether it is now 3 years or 5 years is a factual matter.

Really? I thought you would like people to know the real picture. The real picture is that you won't get your citizenship after 3 years. You are eligible to apply.

"To become Canadian citizens, adults must have resided in Canada for at least three years (1,095 days) in the past four years before applying."
What is so complicated about this? It says 3 years. NOT 5 years. Is this clear enough for you or not? Or do you still want to argue?

You are wrong. It states that are eligible to apply for citizenship if you have stayed at least 3 years in a 4-year period. No where does it says that you become a citizen AFTER 3 years. And that is only if you never left the country during the 3 years. If you leave a day, that day still has to be made up. The whole process will take at least a year. Recent reports indicate wait of up to 2 years. All in, you are looking about 5 years upon getting PR to achieve citizenship.

 

[Time2Evacuate]

Really? I thought you would like people to know the real picture. The real picture is that you won't get your citizenship after 3 years. You are eligible to apply.




You are wrong. It states that are eligible to apply for citizenship if you have stayed at least 3 years in a 4-year period. No where does it says that you become a citizen AFTER 3 years. And that is only if you never left the country during the 3 years. If you leave a day, that day still has to be made up. The whole process will take at least a year. Recent reports indicate wait of up to 2 years. All in, you are looking about 5 years upon getting PR to achieve citizenship.

How am I wrong when I stated that it is 3 years (not 5 years) before one can APPLY? I have never stated anywhere that it is 3 years from start to finish in the sense of obtaining the citizenship.

Look, we have been through this issue already some pages up. The original poster bringing this issue up ERRONEOUSLY referred to a 5 year wait time as being the requirement for APPLYING for citizenship, which I correctly corrected to 3 years. Look back a couple of pages yourself and look at post #1002, where I already clearly stated to you as follows:

Do your research of the facts before you start correcting others lah.

The original poster on this issue stated a 5 year timeline for APPLYING for citizenship, which is incorrect.

No need to twist my words just to attack me.

The original poster on the issue stated the 5 years erroneously in regards to when one can APPLY, look back at post #979 and see for yourself, but I am quoting it here for your convenience in case you are again unable to do your own factual research:

After 5 years time you can apply for Canadian citizen then you can get their hands on their own CPF. Just imagine what you can do with all that $$$.

Like I stated repeatedly, make sure you do your homework and research before you come accuse others of being wrong factually.

I know my facts and I do my research. You better come prepared if you want to take me on.

 

[indig10]

There are some people, whom for reasons only known to them, have certain inadequacies. It may be physical but often psychological, due to their upbringing or experiences growing up into adulthood and through their career.

Inadequacy often reveals itself in the choice of words and tone used. In such cases, an over-riding need to "prove my point" and "knock down your arguments hard". No pun intended at the phallic allusion of such phrases used.

It is even more sorrowful to sense the ferocity behind the replies, like a rabid dog foaming at the mouth, lunging at anyone within reach.

Pity may be misplaced in this case, for such a rabid dog may actually have been the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing all a-long.

 

[Time2Evacuate]

There are some people, whom for reasons only known to them, have certain inadequacies. It may be physical but often psychological, due to their upbringing or experiences growing up into adulthood and through their career.

Inadequacy often reveals itself in the choice of words and tone used. In such cases, an over-riding need to "prove my point" and "knock down your arguments hard". No pun intended at the phallic allusion of such phrases used.

It is even more sorrowful to sense the ferocity behind the replies, like a rabid dog foaming at the mouth, lunging at anyone within reach.

Pity may be misplaced in this case, for such a rabid dog may actually have been the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing all a-long.

I find that funny. Speak for yourself.

If you can't handle straight-forward facts and differing opinions, you should go bugger off somewhere else.

 

[Hock]

By the way, [Hock], how long have you been in Canada?

Almost 3 years already; can take citizenship test soon.

 

[Time2Evacuate]

Almost 3 years already; can take citizenship test soon.

Congrats!

There is a free booklet published by the Canadian Govt. that you may find useful to prepare for the test, which sets out very concisely the information and provides a very succinct overview of the constitutional monarchy system in Canada, in addition to describing the federal and provincial systems.

It is called "How Canadians Govern Themselves" by Eugene A. Forsey. My hardcopy from years ago states that it is also available at www.parl.gc.ca/publications but I am not sure if that url link is still current.

I highly recommend giving that booklet a careful read a couple of times before you take the test.

All the best!

 

[johnny333]

I don't understand the persistent inability to acknowledge the truth, so let me try again to set the record straight.....

One of the things I've noticed with the new generation of Sporeans is that they are too tied to the details, the law,.... They are so rigid about things. I guess it's tied to the fact that in Spore there is no give at all. It's all about following the rules & anyone who dares to step out line are penalised by the system. Maybe that what I like about the Canada, over there people matter more than the details.

Just look at the changes in the waiting period from 5 to 3 years. It's a change that helps people rather than hinder.

I don't come to this forum to start flame wars. Obviously some people have a different agenda.

 

[Time2Evacuate]

One of the things I've noticed with the new generation of Sporeans is that they are too tied to the details, the law,.... They are so rigid about things. I guess it's tied to the fact that in Spore there is no give at all. It's all about following the rules & anyone who dares to step out line are penalised by the system. Maybe that what I like about the Canada, over there people matter more than the details.

Just look at the changes in the waiting period from 5 to 3 years. It's a change that helps people rather than hinder.

I don't come to this forum to start flame wars. Obviously some people have a different agenda.

Interesting, about your opinion that it is more rigid in Singapore than Canada.

Based on my personal opinion of the two places, Singapore is less rigid than Canada as long as one steers clear of political issues. Singapore is more open to economic opportunities with a lesser degree of risk averseness as far as business opportunities are concerned. Yes, people can be kiasu and kiasi sometimes, but by and large, the economic opportunities are there.

Whereas in Canada, as far as economic opportunities are concerned, my personal opinion is that the people tend to be risk averse to a fault. Many economic and social aspects in my opinion are rigidly rule based and quite inflexible. But in the political realm, yes, it is very open in the sense that you have lots of rights and freedoms as an individual.

So it all depends on which aspect you think is important. Are you willing to forgo some level of economic opportunities in exchange for more political freedom?

I am neutral on this and am not disputing your opinion on this point, but just pointing out that it may be more nuanced than you think.

When you have landed and settled in Canada for sometime, maybe you will understand what I mean and end up agreeing with my opinion.

 

[Charlie99]

Almost 3 years already; can take citizenship test soon.

Congratulations!

Which city?

It looks like you and [nayr69sg] have been here about the same time (2.5 to 3 years).

 

[winnipegjets]

Based on my personal opinion of the two places, Singapore is less rigid than Canada as long as one steers clear of political issues. Singapore is more open to economic opportunities with a lesser degree of risk averseness as far as business opportunities are concerned. Yes, people can be kiasu and kiasi sometimes, but by and large, the economic opportunities are there.

Most sinkees are risk averse. kiasi and kiasu are sinkee's traits. What business opportunities are there in sinkapore? The government and GLCs run the economy. There is NO room for entrepreneurship in sinkapore.

Whereas in Canada, as far as economic opportunities are concerned, my personal opinion is that the people tend to be risk averse to a fault. Many economic and social aspects in my opinion are rigidly rule based and quite inflexible. But in the political realm, yes, it is very open in the sense that you have lots of rights and freedoms as an individual.

Nothing will change your anti-Canada rant. If you decide to be an entrepreneur, you can do it with little cost. For eg, you can use your home as an office. There is NO need for you to get some approval, like in sinkapore where you need to apply to the HDB.

 

[johnny333]

Interesting, about your opinion that it is more rigid in Singapore than Canada.

Based on my personal opinion of the two places, Singapore is less rigid than Canada as long as one steers clear of political issues. Singapore is more open to economic opportunities with a lesser degree of risk averseness as far as business opportunities are concerned. Yes, people can be kiasu and kiasi sometimes, but by and large, the economic opportunities are there.

Whereas in Canada, as far as economic opportunities are concerned, my personal opinion is that the people tend to be risk averse to a fault. Many economic and social aspects in my opinion are rigidly rule based and quite inflexible. But in the political realm, yes, it is very open in the sense that you have lots of rights and freedoms as an individual.

So it all depends on which aspect you think is important. Are you willing to forgo some level of economic opportunities in exchange for more political freedom?

I am neutral on this and am not disputing your opinion on this point, but just pointing out that it may be more nuanced than you think.

When you have landed and settled in Canada for sometime, maybe you will understand what I mean and end up agreeing with my opinion.

From your posts I don't think that you are being neutral. I have had many conversations with those who have made the move to Canada & even those who criticise some aspects of Canada have not regretted their decisions to leave Spore. The same goes for those who have chosen to leave for Australia & the US. These people have done their own homework & voted with their feet. There are many in Spore waiting to join them.


If you are unhappy outside Spore, you are welcome to return to Spore I'm sure the PAP would welcome you.

 

[indig10]

It is a very huge fallacy and myth that politics and economics can be separated.

For they are intertwined, and a healthy political environment is equally important to a dynamic economic environment. Now that the economic seams are falling apart, we have an establishment that scrambles to patch up both the economic mess and the political failures.

Only those with either hidden agendas, myopia or intolerance will be blind to what is happening in our dear country and subscribe to the misguided belief that one can exist apart from the other and propound on others.

That or plain ignorance... or sly cunning.

 

[Charlie99]

It is a very huge fallacy and myth that politics and economics can be separated.

For they are intertwined, and a healthy political environment is equally important to a dynamic economic environment. Now that the economic seams are falling apart, we have an establishment that scrambles to patch up both the economic mess and the political failures.

Only those with either hidden agendas, myopia or intolerance will be blind to what is happening in our dear country and subscribe to the misguided belief that one can exist apart from the other and propound on others.

That or plain ignorance... or sly cunning.

I agree.

May be I should consider the suggestion from one of my old friends in Singapore, that I since I have been away for decades, I should deal Singaporean matters. One of my schoolmates was more blunt, that I should bother to comment on Singapore's politics and issues.

May be I should follow brother [nayr69sg], and say good bye.

Edited re: typo ("my" now inserted; and correction to [nayr69sg])

 

[indig10]

饮水思源。

Our ties to Singapore can never be severed, even if all our family and friends have moved out. When we see injustice and suffering happening in our country of origin, do we not feel the pain, sadness and anger?

Never let anyone dictate what you should or shouldn't do. You have every right to stand on the side of justice and truth.

I agree.

May be I should consider the suggestion from one of old friends in Singapore, that I since I have been away for decades, I should deal Singaporean matters. One of my schoolmates was more blunt, that I should bother to comment on Singapore's politics and issues.

May be I should follow brother [natr69sg], and say good bye.

 

[indig10]

In other news...

"The government of Singapore, well, they lost the most — over $600 million. It all just went poof."

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/03/17551...l-estate-deal-that-lost-other-people-billions

- The Botched NY Real Estate Deal That Lost 'Other People' Billions | by NPR STAFF | April 03, 2013 4:36 PM

 

[Charlie99]

In other news...

"The government of Singapore, well, they lost the most — over $600 million. It all just went poof."

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/03/17551...l-estate-deal-that-lost-other-people-billions

- The Botched NY Real Estate Deal That Lost 'Other People' Billions | by NPR STAFF | April 03, 2013 4:36 PM

Wow!

I recall that not too long ago, the Singapore Parliament was debating about whether or not to increase the social assistance to the elderly destitute.
If my memory serves me well, one of the MP's questioned whether it is three meals at a hawker centre or food court.
I believe that $600 million is more than enough to fund such social assistance for 2 to 3 decades.

 

[indig10]

My intention of highlighting this article is not to put the government in a bad light. Unfortunately, that's how it will be construed. Please allow me to explain.

My intention is to highlight the principles that were used in entering this deal. Namely, their desire to profit yet abject failure to account for the rent-regulated housing customs and politics.

True enough as the article writer points out, they did not understand it and it killed them. Our money.

Is such a financially important issue debated in Parliament and discussed in the mainstream media?

Instead, we have the award-winning newspaper publishing jokes about smoking in Beijing and pork soup in Shanghai rivers.

Thank goodness in Canada, rental prices are regulated with the Landlord and Tenants Act and this is mentioned in gratitude not solely by me but by my Canadian-born co-workers. I appreciate the sense and sanity here despite the shortcomings. Which our dear friend will of course be delighted to sink his teeth into.

Wow!

I recall that not too long ago, the Singapore Parliament was debating about whether or not to increase the social assistance to the elderly destitute.
If my memory serves me well, one of the MP's questioned whether it is three meals at a hawker centre or food court.
I believe that $600 million is more than enough to fund such social assistance for 2 to 3 decades.

 

[Charlie99]

My intention of highlighting this article is not to put the government in a bad light. Unfortunately, that's how it will be construed. Please allow me to explain.

My intention is to highlight the principles that were used in entering this deal. Namely, their desire to profit and abject failure to account for the rent-regulated housing customs and politics.

True enough as the article writer points out, they did not understand it and it killed them. Our money.

Is such news broadcasted and debated in Parliament and the mainstream media?

Instead, we have the award-winning newspaper publishing jokes about smoking in Beijing and pork soup in Shanghai rivers.

Sometimes, I questioned whether or not the "team" from Singapore's GIC and/or Temasek Holdings have done their due diligence vis-à-vis the various "failed" investments.
Unfortunately, those 2 entities do not believe in publishing a report card on their wins and losses.
To me, if a deal is too good, why the Americans or others did not consider and invest?
Why would they ask the Singapore's GIC? Who are the other parties who have considered the same "deal" which the Singapore's GIC or temasek Holdings is considering? Why not ask what they are asking (range of $$), then consider whether the lower number is reasonable, otherwise, walk away, and may be the "seller" may call you.

For the sake of Singaporeans, the govt. of Singapore has be more transparent, granted they claim that transparency is detrimental to the SG dollar (only if they incurred more losses than what has been reported).

I have always posed this to many who asked me about investing in this business or that business:
"If it is so good, why do they wish to sell? Watch the business for a week? Analyse the regulatory environment, and if you do not have local knowledge or if you do not understand how and why re: assumptions for the cashflow projections, then no point wasting time to conduct a due diligence."

Caution: I am looking from the perspective of an insolvency practitioner re: break up value or liquidation value versus going concern value.
In addition, I am not one of the SAFOS, OMS or govt scholarship holders, and therefore, not as bright, but I have seen many deals gone bad or failed deals in Ontario, irregularities, including the former "BIMCOR" which was affiliated with the $5 billion pension fund for Bell Canada and Northern Telecom in the 1980's.

 

[eatshitndie]

Wow!

I recall that not too long ago, the Singapore Parliament was debating about whether or not to increase the social assistance to the elderly destitute.
If my memory serves me well, one of the MP's questioned whether it is three meals at a hawker centre or food court.
I believe that $600 million is more than enough to fund such social assistance for 2 to 3 decades.

it depends on how many would fall under the need for "social assistance". how many in their elderly years would be considered eligible for social assistance? and how do you define destitute? all these questions have plaqued 1st world nations, and every nation has such vague and lofty definitions that loopholes exist for programs like these to be exploited. so much so by fraud, sheniganery, corruption and criminal elements that those who truly need them are not helped to the full dollar value but are instead being used and exploited for program expansion. once programs become permanent state institutions, it's near impossible to remove them.

do your math. how many in sg are eligible? 10,000? 50,000? 100,000?

let's say it's high at 100,000. and let's use $15 per day for 3 meals (subsistence living). $15 x 100,000 x 365 days will give you $547,500,000 per year. in 1 year, you'll burn thru' nearly $600m just for meals alone. not 2 to 3 decades that you claim.

ok, let's shave the number down to 20,000. per year, you'll spend $109,500,000. you'll exhaust $600m in less than 6 years just for meals alone.

what if the "eligible elderly" uses the money to play 4-d instead of buying meals? don't tell me about disbursing food stamps rather than cash. because we have been thru' that road before in the west. and an underground market pops up for exchanging food stamps with cash, except that for a dollar worth of food stamp, it's exchanged for 50 cents. and the destitute will use the cash to buy something else other than food. do you see the pattern of cat and mouse everytime a gov tries to create a program with cash or credit disbursements involved?

in this regard, the west has failed miserably. it's better to leave it to non-profit ngo's to run these programs. successful ones are run by folks who are motivated and inspired, not by some gov employees who only worry about job security, protecting and expanding their turf and increasing their pay checks.

 

[Charlie99]

it depends on how many would fall under the need for "social assistance". how many in their elderly years would be considered eligible for social assistance? and how do you define destitute? all these questions have plaqued 1st world nations, and every nation has such vague and lofty definitions that loopholes exist for programs like these to be exploited. so much so by fraud, sheniganery, corruption and criminal elements that those who truly need them are not helped to the full dollar value but are instead being used and exploited for program expansion. once programs become permanent state institutions, it's near impossible to remove them.

do your math. how many in sg are eligible? 10,000? 50,000? 100,000?

let's say it's high at 100,000. and let's use $15 per day for 3 meals (subsistence living). $15 x 100,000 x 365 days will give you $547,500,000 per year. in 1 year, you'll burn thru' nearly $600m just for meals alone. not 2 to 3 decades that you claim.

ok, let's shave the number down to 20,000. per year, you'll spend $109,500,000. you'll exhaust $600m in less than 6 years just for meals alone.

what if the "eligible elderly" uses the money to play 4-d instead of buying meals? don't tell me about disbursing food stamps rather than cash. because we have been thru' that road before in the west. and an underground market pops up for exchanging food stamps with cash, except that for a dollar worth of food stamp, it's exchanged for 50 cents. and the destitute will use the cash to buy something else other than food. do you see the pattern of cat and mouse everytime a gov tries to create a program with cash or credit disbursements involved?

in this regard, the west has failed miserably. it's better to leave it to non-profit ngo's to run these programs. successful ones are run by folks who are motivated and inspired, not by some gov employees who only worry about job security, protecting and expanding their turf and increasing their pay checks.

Thank you.

I was making the assumption that there may be 10,000 to 20,000 individuals who were receiving social assistance,
and that the $600 million plus returns on investment, divided by the monthly increase in social assistance of say $100 per month per individual.
Without making any calculations, the $600 million plus returns on investments should last 2 decades?