I thought I don't have to pay for this year and to my horror, I received a letter from IRAS telling me to pay up by Aug, shit, it's slightly over S$300 even after a 30% discount. And while panicking, I checked my payment notice for last year and realized that I received the notice also in Jul, I must have confused and led myself into believing that I don't have to pay...
That part where they say, "Thank you for your contribution towards nation building", really annoying, collect money then thank me, I serve NS never thank me, oh wait, they gave me an S$80 Safra Voucher and a Safra Membership card that I will probably never use, hahaha... life sucks huh.
Saturday, July 6, 2013
Google Chrome Still Freezes On a Daily Basis
I made a post saying that it was fixed but actually it still happens every day after I applied the fix, just that I didn't really test it out thoroughly and I got so fed up that I switched to Firefox. To be honest, Firefox just isn't as fast as Chrome, the speed difference and smoothness are miles apart. The other problem with Firefox is the screen tearing, it's very obvious when scrolling long pages, not a big problem but it bugs me sometimes.
So recently I did a clean re-installation of my Windows 7 64-bit, just wanted to start anew, clear away the junk, and I thought it was a good time to go back to using Chrome, I thought the freezing would be gone since everything is new, but to my disappointment, it still happens. I'm using Windows 7 32-bit at work, and it runs perfectly, no problem at all and it struck me that the problem could have something to do with my 64-bit OS, so I did a search based on that and found this.
Those guys were having similar problem in Windows 7 64-bit and this Mike4120 poster had a fix,
Mike4120 Mar 27, 2013 at 12:39 AM
It's been driving me mad too!
I found one fix that seems to work for me (at least so far) - try opening chrome:flags and disabling GPU-composting and Threaded composting
Just to clarify, it's GPU compositing and Threaded compositing.
I just applied the fix, I hope it works.
Update: Unfortunately, this does not work as well... that's it, bye bye Google Chrome.
So recently I did a clean re-installation of my Windows 7 64-bit, just wanted to start anew, clear away the junk, and I thought it was a good time to go back to using Chrome, I thought the freezing would be gone since everything is new, but to my disappointment, it still happens. I'm using Windows 7 32-bit at work, and it runs perfectly, no problem at all and it struck me that the problem could have something to do with my 64-bit OS, so I did a search based on that and found this.
Those guys were having similar problem in Windows 7 64-bit and this Mike4120 poster had a fix,
Mike4120 Mar 27, 2013 at 12:39 AM
It's been driving me mad too!
I found one fix that seems to work for me (at least so far) - try opening chrome:flags and disabling GPU-composting and Threaded composting
Just to clarify, it's GPU compositing and Threaded compositing.
I just applied the fix, I hope it works.
Update: Unfortunately, this does not work as well... that's it, bye bye Google Chrome.
Friday, July 5, 2013
Useful Information Before Applying for Long-Term Visit Pass
Summary
Number of marriages between Singapore citizen and foreigner is increasing.
Factors considered when applying for Long-Term Visit Pass, Permanent Residency and Citizenship:
- Sponsor's occupation.
- Sponsor's income.
- Foreign Spouse's education level; degree holders have better chance.
- Children.
- Good conduct.
- Ability to contribute to society.
Those who earn below S$1500 a month (referring to sponsor) usually have a harder time to get their application approved.
Summary
A 34 years old Singaporean man Mr. Leo, managed to obtain PR for his wife from China in less than one year after their marriage in Nov 2011, but he has not forgotten about his fellow Singaporeans with foreign spouse, following was what he said:
If the couple is truly in love, really married, they should let them (foreign spouse) come, rather than send one overseas, every month have to go there or what, it's very tiring, yeah, in the end we also will move over there, we also will give up Singapore citizenship.
Summary
Mr. Kang has been trying for 3 years to apply PR for his wife from China but has been unsuccessful, and their application for Long-Term Visit Pass wasn't easy, it took them more than 5 tries and they finally got it after appealing to Hougang MP Desmond Choo. Mr. Kang hopes for more transparency in the criteria for LTVP application and reasons for rejection.
My Thoughts
I agree with Mr. Kang about the part where ICA should be more transparent with the application criteria and reasons for rejection, but not just for LTVP, for all applications, at least specify clearly why the application was rejected so people can work towards meeting their criteria, don't give half-assed replies or omit the reason for rejection. Imagine taking an exam and the teacher fails you without telling you why, yeah, it's that stupid, and imagine going home and telling your mom that you failed and you have no idea why, it just doesn't even make sense.
I remember the time when they rejected my wife's application for PR, it took them 6 months to reply via a mail, and all they said was something like this, "Sorry we have carefully considered your application for PR but it's rejected.", I bet they must have been really careful, it took them 6 months of careful consideration to send out the rejection letter with no reason, and the letter including the header and footer is probably no more than 100 words. I can tell you I was damn pissed off.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Mob Bullying a MacDonald's Employee Over Hello Kitty
Source
Based on what I understand from the video, seems like those men and a girl were offered 2 soft toys instead of 4 per person, they also claimed that they queued overnight, so? Does that give them the right to talk down to another person? Furthermore, that lady is merely an employee, she's just working for the company i.e. McDonald's, if they are not happy with the offer, and if they feel that they are not getting the justice that they think they deserved, they could always bring it up to McDonald's HQ, it's just an email or phone call away, what's the point of making things difficult for the employee?
Nobody forced them to queue overnight for some stupid soft toys, these idiots don't deserve anything, they are a disgrace, they even have the cheek to threaten to bring in the media, what are they going to show? Show the nation or maybe even show the world how stupid and ugly Singaporeans are? These losers should just stay out of sight so they can stop embarrassing our nation.
And even if McDonald's decided to limit 2 soft toys per customer, it's up to them, it's their company, it's their policy, take it or leave it or bring it up, it's that simple, no use yelling and screaming at someone who was just following a directive. And I don't see McDonald's guaranteeing that every customer will get 4 per person.
I'm also very sure that our 150 policemen have better things to do than to go down there and waste their time with a bunch of losers.
One guy said this, "We are paying customers you know, you settle the issue with us before you carry on", so what else is there to settle? The lady made it clear since the beginning, 2 per person, period. He choose to queue overnight, he set his expectation at getting 4 soft toys even though McDonald's clearly meant that one person may get up to 4. So she will go when she wish, who is this guy to restrict her, a man saying that to a woman, what a loser.
Based on what I understand from the video, seems like those men and a girl were offered 2 soft toys instead of 4 per person, they also claimed that they queued overnight, so? Does that give them the right to talk down to another person? Furthermore, that lady is merely an employee, she's just working for the company i.e. McDonald's, if they are not happy with the offer, and if they feel that they are not getting the justice that they think they deserved, they could always bring it up to McDonald's HQ, it's just an email or phone call away, what's the point of making things difficult for the employee?
Nobody forced them to queue overnight for some stupid soft toys, these idiots don't deserve anything, they are a disgrace, they even have the cheek to threaten to bring in the media, what are they going to show? Show the nation or maybe even show the world how stupid and ugly Singaporeans are? These losers should just stay out of sight so they can stop embarrassing our nation.
And even if McDonald's decided to limit 2 soft toys per customer, it's up to them, it's their company, it's their policy, take it or leave it or bring it up, it's that simple, no use yelling and screaming at someone who was just following a directive. And I don't see McDonald's guaranteeing that every customer will get 4 per person.
I'm also very sure that our 150 policemen have better things to do than to go down there and waste their time with a bunch of losers.
One guy said this, "We are paying customers you know, you settle the issue with us before you carry on", so what else is there to settle? The lady made it clear since the beginning, 2 per person, period. He choose to queue overnight, he set his expectation at getting 4 soft toys even though McDonald's clearly meant that one person may get up to 4. So she will go when she wish, who is this guy to restrict her, a man saying that to a woman, what a loser.
My Wife Almost Won 4D First and Second Prize
Following is today's 4D results.
Draw No: 3502
Wed 03 Jul 13
My wife bought 7 similar numbers, she could have bought iBet instead... anyway, of the 7 numbers, there are 1191 and 1939, she said she was thinking of buying 1119 but she marked wrongly and bought 0911 twice instead.
That was really close, imagine winning both the first and second prize. Oh, she also bought S$2 of Toto for tomorrow's draw, I am now very curious what will happen... some people say pregnant women brings luck, we'll see how true that is.
Draw No: 3502
Wed 03 Jul 13
| 1st Prize | 1119 |
| 2nd Prize | 1929 |
| 3rd Prize | 4477 |
| Starter Prizes | |
| 1332 | 1744 |
| 2359 | 3647 |
| 4883 | 5046 |
| 6459 | 8364 |
| 9742 | 9969 |
| Consolation Prizes | |
| 0632 | 3547 |
| 4660 | 5364 |
| 5568 | 5851 |
| 6395 | 6514 |
| 8783 | 9252 |
My wife bought 7 similar numbers, she could have bought iBet instead... anyway, of the 7 numbers, there are 1191 and 1939, she said she was thinking of buying 1119 but she marked wrongly and bought 0911 twice instead.
That was really close, imagine winning both the first and second prize. Oh, she also bought S$2 of Toto for tomorrow's draw, I am now very curious what will happen... some people say pregnant women brings luck, we'll see how true that is.
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Vietnam Graduate Unable to Obtain LTVP+ (Update)
My last post is here.
Today I was surfing the net a bit while at work and found that ICA responded to the story of the Vietnam bride who was unable to obtain LTVP+.
Source
In Madam Pham's case, her long-term visit pass application was not successful as her Singaporean husband did not meet the criteria then.
Nonetheless, we granted her a six-month long-term visit pass on compassionate grounds.
Upon expiry of her long-term visit pass in the middle of this year, we will reassess and review her case, given that her husband has recently found employment.
So from what I can see, her husband was unemployed when they were applying for the LTVP. I would like to hear more into the story because when you look at her husband's unemployment, plus they paid almost S$20,000 for the delivery charges and they live in a condo, it does sound a bit unusual. Perhaps they have a substantial amount of savings.
Anyway, since the reason for rejection was her husband's unemployment, I guess if they try again now they'll probably get it. Best of luck to Madam Pham and family.
Today I was surfing the net a bit while at work and found that ICA responded to the story of the Vietnam bride who was unable to obtain LTVP+.
Source
In Madam Pham's case, her long-term visit pass application was not successful as her Singaporean husband did not meet the criteria then.
Nonetheless, we granted her a six-month long-term visit pass on compassionate grounds.
Upon expiry of her long-term visit pass in the middle of this year, we will reassess and review her case, given that her husband has recently found employment.
So from what I can see, her husband was unemployed when they were applying for the LTVP. I would like to hear more into the story because when you look at her husband's unemployment, plus they paid almost S$20,000 for the delivery charges and they live in a condo, it does sound a bit unusual. Perhaps they have a substantial amount of savings.
Anyway, since the reason for rejection was her husband's unemployment, I guess if they try again now they'll probably get it. Best of luck to Madam Pham and family.
Monday, July 1, 2013
Vietnam Graduate Unable to Obtain LTVP+
Source
How come?
Let's look at her "qualifications".
So why not? I don't understand why her application was rejected, or at least grant her a LTVP, why totally reject her? The article was published on 12 Feb 2013 and at that time, she was only given a 6 months visit pass which was non-renewable. What is going on?
I totally agree with what she said at the last paragraph.
What I find staggering is the number of foreigners living in our condominium, who are permitted to bring in their spouse, children, parents and even parents-in-law, while I am not not allowed to stay in Singapore despite my entire family being Singaporeans.
I see plenty of such entire foreign families, more and more these days, not that I have a problem with them, it's just that I find it unfair when spouses of Singaporeans are being rejected but family members of PRs are being granted LTVP, how does that even make any sense? Let's say the government is worried that these Singaporeans might be unable to take care of their foreign spouse, but what about this Vietnam lady? Her husband is an English tutor working full-time at CDAC, they are living in a condominium, so what's the problem?
Or how about a single working PR applying long-term visit passes for his spouse and his parents, why isn't the government worried that this PR might be unable to take care of 3 dependants? Or worse still, this single working PR has a child, that makes it 4 dependants, whereas most Singaporeans are merely asking for one visit pass, but every year, thousands of such Singaporean requests are thrown out of the window.
Sometimes I'm baffled by the way our government works, policies are supposed to apply to everyone, but why do I see a double standard?
How come?
Let's look at her "qualifications".
- Degree Holder.
- Have a Singaporean boy.
- Husband is an English tutor (see the comments).
- They were married in Singapore.
- They are living in a condominium (richer than me).
Let's look at requirements for LTVP+.
2. Couples who have at least one Singaporean child from their marriage will be eligible to apply for the LTVP+. For those without a Singapore Citizen child, ICA will look at other factors such as the duration of marriage, and will in general consider more favourably those who have been married for at least three years.
So why not? I don't understand why her application was rejected, or at least grant her a LTVP, why totally reject her? The article was published on 12 Feb 2013 and at that time, she was only given a 6 months visit pass which was non-renewable. What is going on?
I totally agree with what she said at the last paragraph.
What I find staggering is the number of foreigners living in our condominium, who are permitted to bring in their spouse, children, parents and even parents-in-law, while I am not not allowed to stay in Singapore despite my entire family being Singaporeans.
I see plenty of such entire foreign families, more and more these days, not that I have a problem with them, it's just that I find it unfair when spouses of Singaporeans are being rejected but family members of PRs are being granted LTVP, how does that even make any sense? Let's say the government is worried that these Singaporeans might be unable to take care of their foreign spouse, but what about this Vietnam lady? Her husband is an English tutor working full-time at CDAC, they are living in a condominium, so what's the problem?
Or how about a single working PR applying long-term visit passes for his spouse and his parents, why isn't the government worried that this PR might be unable to take care of 3 dependants? Or worse still, this single working PR has a child, that makes it 4 dependants, whereas most Singaporeans are merely asking for one visit pass, but every year, thousands of such Singaporean requests are thrown out of the window.
Sometimes I'm baffled by the way our government works, policies are supposed to apply to everyone, but why do I see a double standard?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)