- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 15,733
- Points
- 83
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/05/prs-allowed-to-retain-property-after-giving-up-status/
The CNA report caused much anger among the public, and the removal of the particular part of its report caused confusion.
so who is right? if he anyhow pom, how to believe his words then?
The CNA report caused much anger among the public, and the removal of the particular part of its report caused confusion.
In full, this is the relevant part of Mr Shanmugam’s speech which you can view here [emphasis ours]:
“Requiring ex-Singapore Citizens and ex-Permanent Residents to dispose of their Restricted Properties
“The final group of key amendments deals with the disposal of Restricted Properties belonging to ex-Singapore citizens and ex-Permanent Residents (PRs), and to foreign persons beneficially entitled to Restricted Properties through inheritance. Our policy is that only foreigners who are PRs and who have been given specific approval under the RPA can own Restricted Properties. Foreign beneficiaries who inherit such properties and Singapore Citizens and PRs who renounce or lose their citizenship or permanent residency, must dispose of their interests in the properties in a timely manner.
“Currently, the executors or administrators have ten years to dispose of the foreign beneficiaries’ interest in a Restricted Property if the beneficiaries do not qualify for approval under the RPA. As the estate administration process has been simplified with the abolishment of estate duty in 2008, we will shorten the disposal period to five years.
“We will now also require individuals who renounce or lose their Singapore Citizenship or Permanent Residency to dispose of their Restricted Properties. The amendment will address the current anomaly in our laws whereby an ex-Singaporean or ex-PR can continue to hold on to their Restricted Properties.”
so who is right? if he anyhow pom, how to believe his words then?