The privilege of permanent residency in Singapore: Commentary

Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 04 Mar 2026

Revoking PR status is a serious move. While the law provides a framework, discretion is key.

Recent criminal convictions involving permanent residents have raised some interesting questions: When can Singapore revoke a foreigner’s permanent resident (PR) status? In what circumstances would a PR lose their status?

The government exercises these significant powers, but such powers are regulated by the Immigration Act 1959. Singapore PRs who have been convicted of an offence will have their PR status reviewed by the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA). Similarly, those who engage in undesirable conduct could have their PR status revoked.

It was recently reported that the government had revoked former actor Ian Fang’s permanent residency status in February, following his earlier criminal conviction for sexual offences against an underage girl. He would be deported from Singapore after completing his jail sentence and is barred from re-entering Singapore after his deportation.

And last November, it was reported that billionaire Ong Beng Seng’s PR status had been reviewed but was not revoked. Ong, a Malaysian citizen, was earlier convicted of abetting the obstruction of justice in a case linked to former transport minister S. Iswaran.

In August last year, Ong was fined $30,000 but spared jail time. He was also given a written warning that any future adverse conduct will render his PR status liable for revocation.

When asked in Parliament in September about the circumstances in which PR status or work passes can be revoked when their holders commit a criminal offence in Singapore, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs K. Shanmugam replied there was a framework to assess such cases based on the facts, the nature and severity of the incident, the person’s family roots here, and the contributions of the person to Singapore.

Here, authorities exercise discretion granted by the relevant laws to make decisions on a case-by-case basis, based on specific facts and within limits provided for by the law.

Rather than a rigid adherence to adopted policy guidelines, this discretion on how best to handle individual cases is important to maintain public trust and confidence in our immigration policies.

PR: A conditional privilege

Recent developments reiterate the principle that PR status cannot be conferred lightly and should not be taken for granted.

PRs are issued two permits: an entry permit when they first receive PR status, which allows them to enter and remain in Singapore; and a re-entry permit with a fixed validity period, which allows them to re-enter Singapore after having left temporarily. While PR status technically does not expire, re-entry permits are usually valid for up to five years.

Since December 2025, Singapore PRs who leave the country without a valid re-entry permit will have six months to apply for one. If they remain overseas and do not do so, their PR status will be automatically cancelled.

A lost PR status cannot be reinstated, and a fresh application for PR needs to be made.

Having a valid re-entry permit while abroad is an indication that the PR intends to return to Singapore. Each re-entry permit application is evaluated taking into consideration factors relating to our policies and security, the PR’s period of residence in Singapore, his contributions to Singapore, family ties, and conduct.

Put simply, so long as a PR continues to be committed and contribute to Singapore, re-entry permit applications will normally be approved. Even if a PR has retired and is no longer earning an income, Singapore recognises that they had contributed to the nation during their working years.

The refreshed re-entry permit application process suggests that the PR regime has been made more rigorous to ensure that only those who are deemed most suitable will get it. It shows that PR status is neither permanent nor an entitlement. Instead, those who seek PR status need to accept that PR is a conditional privilege.

In fact, back in 2023, then-Second Home Affairs Minister Josephine Teo had stated in Parliament that “foreigners should neither be entitled nor expect to be given the right to enter or remain in Singapore. This must be the absolute prerogative of the Government acting in the public interest”.

Revoking one’s PR status in appropriate circumstances is in line with the idea of PR being a privilege. Our PR population was 0.54 million as of June 2025 and has remained stable at this mark for almost two decades now. But in the recent Committee of Supply debate, it was announced that the resident total fertility rate sank to a historic low of 0.87 in 2025.

The PR and new citizen population must increase gradually as a policy response. But it is precisely because we need more PRs that the government cannot be lax on the overriding need for suitability. We should not let up on the quality of our immigration.

Indeed, the government’s policy of granting PR to foreigners is a strict one and is geared towards protecting and advancing the national interests of Singapore, including safeguarding the interest of Singaporeans.

Each PR application is assessed rigorously. Authorities consider factors including an applicant’s length of residency in Singapore, family ties to Singaporeans, economic contributions, educational qualifications (such as whether an applicant possesses skills needed in various economic and social sectors), age and family profile, the applicant’s ability to integrate into our society and commitment to sinking roots in Singapore.

The re-entry permit regime also ensures that existing PRs are regularly assessed for their suitability to continue as PRs. In 2023, Parliament was informed that less than 2 per cent of the total PR population each year lose their PR status by being outside of Singapore without a valid re-entry permit. Of those who had appealed, the majority were also successful as they had valid reasons for not renewing their re-entry permit in time.

Permanent residency is also a waystation for non-citizens to become Singapore citizens. Second-generation PRs also serve national service – in fact, NS liable-PRs who do not serve NS could see an adverse impact on their future to work or study in Singapore.

The need for sensitivity

Singapore is facing a triple whammy of a very low birth rate, rapidly ageing population, and a growing economy that requires a diverse talent pool.

Immigration can help Singapore manage this, whether through new citizens, PRs or transient migrant workers – but it is also a sensitive issue that the government and Singaporeans alike will need to continue to manage adroitly.

In general, a state’s citizenship and immigration regime needs to be sensitive at two levels, with competing, if not contradictory objectives.

At the first level, it needs to be responsive to the domestic population’s concerns about immigration inflows and their impact while ensuring the native population buys into the policy. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new immigrants.

At the same time, the regime also needs to be responsive to the competitive and aggressive immigration regimes internationally that seek to attract migrants from the same talent pool. This race for talent is intense even as the quest is to attract the right type of immigrant.

Today, the government remains steadfast in its belief that Singapore must welcome suitable immigrants as a way of augmenting Singapore’s population quantitatively and qualitatively but also to retain Singaporean talent by having a dynamic and vibrant economy.

Given the existential demographic challenges, the imperative is to ensure the immigration regime is attractive to both prospective PRs and citizens as well as existing citizens. There is no alternative to this.

In similar vein and considering Singapore’s need for more PRs and new citizens, the granting and deprivation of PR status must stand up to intense scrutiny by stakeholders while also imbuing confidence that the immigration regime remains conducive to the public good.

Eugene K.B. Tan specialises in constitutional and administrative law at the Singapore Management University and is a former Nominated Member of Parliament.