A: No, it isn't! Here are the facts. Irene lived in the UK from 1988 to 1992 (4 years) before the whole family moved to Singapore from 1992 to 1998. She then stayed on in Singapore whilst her husband returned to the UK with their two children - the reason why she stayed on was because her elderly parents were in poor health and needed caring for. The returned to the UK from 2003 to 2005 (a further 2 years), but then she returns to Singapore after that. She then returns to the UK in 2013 and she stayed here until she was deported a few days ago (a further 4 years). So let's do the maths kids: what is 4 + 4 + 2 = ? That makes 10. Can you count? She lived in the UK for 10 years, not 30.
Q: So where did this figure of 30 years come from if Irene has only lived 10 years in the UK?
A: It can be traced back to Irene's sister-in-law Angela Clennell who made that claim. Angela wrote on her Go Fund Me page (to raise funds to help Irene), "For 30 years, my sister-in-law Irene has lived in Britain after arriving here from Singapore. She has a British husband, two wonderful British children and a granddaughter she dotes upon. She has worked hard for those 30 years raising her family and being an important and beloved member of the local community." That's a total lie. Even if Irene did not leave the UK after arriving in 1998, do the maths. She arrived in the UK 29 years ago in 1998 as it is 2017 this year. That figure of 30 years was conveniently rounded up by Angela for dramatic effect (or maybe she's yet another one who can't do basic maths). But the fact is Irene had at most lived in the UK for 10 years, not 29, not 30. By all means raise funds to help Irene, but don't lie about the facts and figures. If I could do the maths and work this out, I am surprised Emily Duggan and so many other journalists have not done so.
 |
| It is so important to understand the terms of your visa! |
Q: Is this an example of 'fake news' as talked about by president Trump?
A: Either the Buzzfeed journalist Emily Duggan can't do simple maths or she is so shit at journalism she didn't bother checking her facts. Either way, the basic facts of that article are plain wrong. At least the BBC article did bother checking the facts and getting it right. Websites like Buzzfeed unfortunately give the impression that they have an extreme left-wing agenda to discredit the UK Conservative government and I have no idea how someone like Emily Duggan can make such a terrible mistake - there's plenty of emotional punch in the story anyway about tearing a family apart and you could also draw upon the part whereby Irene was in Singapore not to work in corporate finance or as an investment banker but to take care for her sick parents. Getting your maths wrong makes the journalist look plain stupid. There's fake news, then there are incompetent journalists who do not even check their facts.
Q: So is Angela - Irene's sister-in-law, a scammer? Is she breaking the law by raising money by cooking up a version of the story that isn't true at all, by claiming that Irene had lived in the country for 30 years when Irene had spent less than 10 years in the UK? How can she do that - lie to the public like that? Isn't that downright illegal?
A: It is clear that Angela has lied and that she has succeeded in swaying public sympathy on the basis of a lie - if she had been truthful, then I doubt the public reaction would be one of sympathy. It would have been more like, "well, this woman made a grave mistake and needs to take responsibility for her error." But now, Angela has made it look like Irene is an innocent victim but the story doesn't add up at all. There are glaring holes in the story Angela Clennell has presented: she didn't once mention how Irene willfully flouted the terms and conditions of her visa, she didn't once mention how Irene had overstayed her visitor's visa. She didn't mention anything about the time that Irene had chosen to live in Singapore (11 years at the longest stretch from 1992 to 2003) - did the details of the case conveniently slip her mind or did she deliberately lie? Oh I don't doubt that Angela Clennell is a big fat liar and the story that she presented on the GoFundMe page is nothing short of a piece of fiction.
 |
| When does exaggeration become fraud? |
Q: Wait, if Angela is obtaining money through dishonest means, by deceiving the public, why are people falling for it if they can obtain the facts of the case through other news sites, like the BBC then? Shouldn't the police be asked to investigate if there is a crime being committed by Angela? Are there limits even to exaggerations/white lies?
A: I'm afraid this is a reflection of the British public today. Many people are too stupid and believe what they want to believe - it is called confirmation bias. Dig a bit deeper into the Irene Clennell case and you'll see there's a clear reason why she was deported - her case was considered and rejected because she didn't follow the rules. There's nothing insensitive or unfair about the government's decision. But no, there are people out there who hate the current Tory government and are looking for any story that makes the government look like the enemy of the people. So if someone presents Irene as the innocent grandmother who gets deported without even a change of clothes, then anyone who already hates the government is going to lap up the story and share it on social media without checking if the story is true. It is internet click-bait and to obtain money through deceit or false pretenses in the UK is in fact a crime: now am I evil enough to make a police report? Angela Clennell will do what her sister-in-law did, plead ignorance and stupidity, claim that she exaggerated the details under stress to try to raise the money and promise to give the money back and I'll be made public enemy number by a public who doesn't understand the case.
I'll give you another example - a much more high profile one. Boris Johnson and Nigel Farrage lied to the British public that once the UK leaves the EU, the NHS will receive £350m a week that would have otherwise been sent to the EU. The Brexit voters were dumb enough to believe a claim that was so obviously untrue - yet because it concurred with the version of events that they want to believe in, they gladly voted for Brexit on the basis of a claim that was totally false. I'd love to see Johnson and Farrage thrown in jail and I'll personally toss the keys to their cells into the Thames so these two bastards will never get out for having lied like that - but instead they got away with it and still have commanding roles in British politics today. It is sickening - so if high profile politicians can lie to the public, then Angela Clennell probably thought, the public are too fucking stupid and will donate without verifying the facts. I have no incentive to poke this hornet's nest - Irene Clennell may appeal but her chances of reversing her deportation are poor. The public are free to give money to Angela Clennell if they are dumb enough to part with their hard earned money like that - the onus should really be on the donor to check the cause they are donating to before parting with their money. If they're really dumb enough not to check the facts before donating, then they deserve to lose their money.
A: False. Completely false because the Buzzfeed journalist clearly doesn't have a clue how immigration works - okay, I get it, British people who are born British don't have to contend with complex immigration laws as it doesn't affect them but having emigrated from Singapore to the UK, I have been through the system so I know precisely how the rules work. Emily Duggan has confused the two issues in such a ridiculous way! Firstly, Irene was first granted indefinite leave to remain way back in 1992 - that was a good 20 years before this £18,600 rule was introduced in 2012. This rule is controversial I grant you that, but Irene had so many opportunities in that 22 year period to make arrangements to naturalize as a British citizen in the period between 1992 and 2012 but for some reason, she chose not to do so. If Irene had been smart enough to have picked up the phone and talked to an immigration consultant or lawyer, she could have easily naturalized as a British citizen back in the mid-1990s, a long time before this new rule was introduced. Duh. This new rule simply isn't relevant in Irene's case - again, this is very poor journalism.
Q: How did Irene mess this up so badly?
A: Irene made an assumption and in her own words, "Initially when I applied for indefinite leave to remain I got it no problem at all. So I thought when you're married down here, you're entitled to be here." She made an assumption about her right to live in the UK just because she was married to a British man. But the rules of her indefinite leave to remain clearly state that you cannot spend more than 2 years away from the UK when on this visa. If you stay away for more than 2 years, then it automatically invalidates your visa regardless of how many family members (husband, children, grandchildren etc) you may have in the UK. Irene left the UK in 1992 and only tried to return in 2003 after having spent 11 years away. Now is the number 11 bigger or smaller than 2? That's right, she violated the terms and conditions of her indefinite leave to remain visa by staying away from the UK for long 11 years. Now you can debate till the cows come home about whether 2 years is too short a grace period for someone in that position to spend away from the UK and retain that visa, but I'm not here to debate the relative merits of those rules - I'm just here to point out to you where Irene has messed up. She made an assumption rather than verifying what the rules were. Duh.
 |
| Irene made a huge error of judgement by holding onto her Singapore passport. |
Q: What should she have done instead?
A: Well for starters, she should have picked up the phone and spoken to an immigration lawyer who would have told her not to violate the rules of visa! She had several options, she could have immediately applied for a British passport there and then (and it would be granted on the basis of her marriage). Those who are not married to a British national would have to wait 12 months before they could do that. She could still then live in Singapore as a British expatriate - Singapore is such an expatriate friendly country and if she or her husband could find work there, they would have no problem getting the right visas to enable them to live and work there. Either that, or she should have broken up her stay in Singapore into tranches under 2 years - so each time she got close to that 2 year mark, she should return to the UK for at least a few months so as not to violate the terms of her visa. The moment she willfully broken the rules, she had put herself on the wrong side of the law. Please, never ever put yourself in that position!
Q: But this woman just wants to be with her family, the UK government is being very cruel to split up a family like that - can compassion be shown to Irene even if she did break some of the immigration rules? Can mercy be shown?
A: Irene chose to spend time away from her husband and family from the period of 1998 to 2003. She was in Singapore caring for her sick mother whilst her husband had returned to the UK with their children then. That is 5 years apart. For a woman who claimed to want to be with her family, you can look back at the period of their 27 year marriage and say, "hang on - you've only actually lived together for the period of 1990 to 1998 (8 years), then 2003 to 2005 (2 years) and then 2013 to 2017 (4 years). That makes a total of just 14 years out of a 27 year marriage - you were living together for barely half the time. How many married couples actually spend half the time they are married living 8 time zones apart? The fact that her husband John did live in Singapore from the period 1992 to 1998 shows that it wasn't impossible for John to live in Singapore and be with his wife that way. The statistics show a couple who aren't close at all, so for her to claim that she just wants to be with her family after spending half her marriage practically estranged from her husband, you can see why she has at best, a weak case as the evidence is reveals.
 |
| How many couples choose to live 8 time zones apart? |
Irene has two children who are now grown up, but we know that she spent 5 years apart from her family from 1998 to 2003 - given that she was married in 1990, her children must have been very young then. Oh you can wax lyrical about the filial daughter taking care of her sick, elderly parents, but what kind of terrible mother abandons her young children for five years when they need their mother the most? Sure she may be a good daughter on one hand, but having spent that much time away from her children by failing to make practical arrangements to bring up her own children - goodness me, that makes her a terrible mother by that token. You can see why the Home Office has rejected her case because she has demonstrated little interest in being with her own children - they can't just bend over and say, "oh she's had a change of heart and now she wants to be near her children despite abandoning them when they were young". I am seeing both sides of the story - maybe she has had a change of heart, that's possible - but the evidence (or rather, the absence) of family life works against her in this case.
Q: But Irene claimed, "I don’t have anything in Singapore. I don’t have a house to go to, I don’t have a job. I feel closer to my mother-in-law and sister-in-law than my family in Singapore. My parents are both dead and I only have one sister there and we’re not that close. I’m British. When I’m here I feel at home. If I go to Singapore nobody will accept me there because they see me as a British woman. I wear Western clothes and my whole culture is here."
A: I'm sorry to be a bitch but Irene did spend more of her life in Singapore than the UK. Her accent is totally Singaporean - she doesn't sound British at all. She is 53 years old and lived at best 10 years in the UK, 43 years in Singapore. It seems ironic that she wants to live in the UK so badly now but that seems to contradict her actions in the past, when she passed up the chance to live in the UK and went out of her way to spend extended periods in Singapore. And it is utter bullshit that nobody will accept her as a British woman - that's fucking racist. Singapore is a big, modern, metropolis with 5.5 million people. Nobody is asking you to run for public office in Singapore or win some kind of popularity contest - you just have to settle in, find a job, find new friends like all other adults. And it's not like we're sending you to a country you know nothing about - you spent 43 years there, may I remind you Irene and by that token, you know Singapore a lot better than you'll ever know the UK where you've spent just 10 years. The remark about western clothes just takes the piss - look my mother is as Singaporean as they come and I've never ever seen her in a Cheong Sam, Sarong Kebaya or Sari. Where did she think she was being deported to - Riyadh? Tehran?
 |
| Singapore - where Irene has lived for 43 years. |
In any case, let me remind you that Irene spent 43 years of her life in Singapore and she's 53 years old today. How on earth can you live 43 years old in Singapore and not have any friends at all? No ex-classmates? Former neighbours? No former colleagues? No relatives at all? Really? What did this woman do in 43 years, was she in solitary confinement, spending her time on the internet watching movies? Heck, I have spent a two short stints in working in Berlin last year and if I were to go back to Berlin tomorrow, I'd know exactly whom I'd stay with, whom I'd be catching up with and whom I'd be partying with. And my German isn't even that fluent but hey, I know how to make friends. But like her sister in law Angela, Irene is lying through her teeth again as it is simply inconceivable that she has nothing and no one in Singapore. I've lived in the UK for 20 years (that's double what Irene's time in the UK) and I still have loads of friends in Singapore whenever I return to visit. This woman is a deceitful liar - she is exaggerating because she's desperate for public sympathy, thinking that it would help her case. But she's hardly a convincing liar, no.
Q: They deported her with just £12 (S$20) in her pocket - how do they expect her to survive in Singapore?
A: Irene is not being completely honest here - she is trying to portray herself as this poor grandmother being deported, yet in the BBC interview, she admitted that, "Mrs Clennell did not apply for a British passport because Singapore does not allow dual nationality, and she needed to remain a Singapore national to live in a government flat there." So that suggests that Irene does have a HDB flat in Singapore (or at least had one in the past). Could Irene have rented a HDB flat in Singapore? That is highly unlikely as there are very strict rules to qualify for the HDB Public Rental Scheme - currently, the income ceiling is S$1500 per month, per household. And that's the 2017 income ceiling, in the 1990s, it would have been around £1000. Did she and her husband get by with less than $1000 a month in Singapore, bringing up two children? No, that seems implausible - leaving the only reason why Irene wanted to hold on to her Singaporean passport was to purchase a HDB flat. Now even back in the 1990s, those flats weren't cheap at all and some of the nicer HDB flats today can cost as over S$1 million. This suggests that Irene isn't the pitiful, penniless grandmother as suggested, but someone trying to make a property investment in Singapore in the 1990s, it was for that nice HDB flat.
 |
| Irene could have come to Singapore as a British expat. |
Q: You almost sound spiteful and glad that she got deported, you bloody evil bastard.
A: Believe it or not, you can take the boy out of Singapore but not Singapore out of the boy. Singaporeans are extremely law abiding and we follow the rules. I followed the rules when it came to migrating to the UK, I checked all the boxes, I fulfilled all the requirements, I was ever so careful with my paperwork. When I received my UK passport, I dutifully renounced my Singaporean citizenship - I followed every single rule and regulation and guess what? The British system treated me very fairly and I had no problems whatsoever. Irene thinks that she can break the rules, plead ignorance and then have her sister-in-law Angela run a campaign based on a bunch of total lies to get public support? Hell no. I think Irene is playing fast and loose with the law - even if I don't hold her responsible for her sister-in-law's ridiculous lies, she had every opportunity to follow the law and try to get back to the UK legally. You can't break the rules, have your visa revoked and then plead ignorance. No, stupidity or ignorance is not a valid excuse.
Q: Was it merely a question of paperwork, if she had applied for a different visa everything would be okay?
A: No. After her indefinite leave to remain had lapsed, her only hope would have been to apply for a returning resident visa. For that she had to demonstrate "strong family ties to the UK", evidence that they have "lived in the UK most of their life, their current circumstances and why they have lived outside the UK". Now she ticks two out of three boxes: she is married to a British man and there was a compelling reason why she was obliged to live in Singapore for so many years to care for her parents. But where she fails is the number of years she had lived in the UK. Her initial stint in the UK was only 4 years long and the moment she was granted indefinite leave to remain, what did she do? Did she naturalize as a British citizen? Hell no, she couldn't wait to get on the next flight out of Heathrow to Singapore. That is the opposite of what a "returning resident" would have done. I have no idea why she was so fixated on a HDB flat when there are plenty of opportunities to invest in property in the UK in any case - it's not as if she had a nice condo in River Valley in any case, she wanted a HDB flat, go figure. She had really messed up, there was no way back now.
 |
| Not too bad a place to live, Irene... |
A: They have 28 days to file an appeal from her deportation. It is now Tuesday, so they have 26 days left. It will probably fail again - all her previous applications have failed, so a high profile deportation along with some nasty lies told by Irene and Angela isn't going to change the minds of the people at the Home Office. If anything, the lies they have told are simply going to hurt her case. The case will be rejected and Irene will have to rebuild her life in Singapore where she has spent 43 years of her life - she currently has a 10 year ban on her entering the UK after the deportation which will apply should her appeal fail. Some lawyer in England will make a lot of money from this case thanks to the very generous but misguided donations by the public and sadly, It is one thing to start one of those online petitions for a cause you care deeply about, but to ask the public to give you money for your cause - now that takes it into a whole new territory. I fear this will only encourage others with criminal intentions to exploit this method to ask the public to donate to their dubious causes given that the British public has proven itself to be very gullible indeed.
So there you go, it was a straight forward case until I came across the lies her sister-in-law told and I was appalled by how many terrible, incompetent journalists reported those lies as fake news without verifying their facts. I hope I have been able to introduce some truth back into the debate. What do you make of the Irene Clennell case then? If you have any questions about the case, then let's talk about it here, leave a comment below. Many thanks for reading.
Part 2 is ready! http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/irene-clennell-part-2-more-of-your-q.html
Part 3: as well: http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/part-3-fake-news-uk-home-office-and.html
Great article.. except for the stuff about Farage. He clearly stated he was NOT responsible for the NHS ad. Everyone knows he had nothing to do with it. He was "ostracised" from the leave campaign as everyone knows. Except of course those who are having trouble with the outcome of that referendum. I personally saw that particular advert as suggesting there is 350M leaving the country which could be put to better use in the UK.. like the NHS.
ReplyDeleteGreat Article though. Just a personal shame for me that you somehow managed to squeeze BREXIT into it. It has no relevance.
Ooooh we have a Farage fan here. I raised the issue as an example of confirmation bias. Tell someone something they wanna hear, that they'd like to be true and they'll gladly listen to you and believe every word you say without verifying the facts. I'm pointing out that it applies to everybody whether you're left wing or right wing. Loads of people read that £350m ad and actually took it at face value and believed what Farage & Johnson claimed, when we all know that was never ever going to be the case once we have Brexit. In the case of Irene Clennell, so many left wing people are believing the lies that Angela Clennell is telling to raise funds for Irene, why? Because they want to believe that the Tory government is evil, uncaring, anti-immigrant and would break up happy families just to fulfill a quota. They are sharing the story on social media and donating to Angela Clennell without verifying the facts the same way so many people voted for Brexit without checking the facts. My conclusion is simple: the majority of the British public are surprisingly stupid and gullible, whether they are left wing or right wing, they share one thing in common: they are dumb and gullible and are equally prone to confirmation bias. So whether you voted for Brexit or not, whether you are left wing or right wing, I still think you're mostly dumb and gullible. I'll insult you all, just the same.
DeleteHave a nice day.
I take it that one of the main reasons why she was deported was because she was poor and wasn't gainfully employed. Her husband is probably on welfare she was hoping to get the both of them depending on handouts once she returns to the UK. Her marriage might even be one of convenience (aka green card marriage in US) which could be the reason she spends so much time away from her husband.
ReplyDeleteI don't think her wealth (or relative poverty) is an issue - look, she was granted indefinite leave to remain on the basis of her marriage back in 1992, that's the way the law works. Currently, only the very, very poor are not allowed to bring spouses into the country as the government has set a minimum of an income of £18,600 a year if you want to bring in a foreign spouse. To give you an idea of how much that is, a trainee manager at McDonald's earns up to £21,500 to £24,500 depending on the restaurant's location. And assistant manager in Starbucks earns nearly £20k and an assistant store manager in retail still manages about £19,400. This is designed to keep out those who just wanna bring in their foreign spouses to sponge off the state without having contributed to the tax system.
DeleteBut the fact is, once you fulfill the £18,600 threshold, it doesn't matter if you're poor or rich. Let's look at it from another angle, even if her husband was very, very rich, she still would have been rejected because she broke the rules by exceeding the max limit of 2 years abroad.
If her marriage was a marriage of convenience, then why did they bother having 2 kids? Condom broke or what?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIs this Irene James/Clennell? Wow welcome to my blog. How were we supposed to know how to reach you? I didn't want to go through Angela as I fundamentally didn't trust her since she made up that figure of you living in the UK for 30 years. Are you happy to talk now?
DeleteNot saying it is guaranteed but with 2M invested in UK you can get a tier 1 visa and with even more invested, I think to the tune of 10M you can fast track the IHL from 5 to just 3 years. Definitely a golden visa back in the day for rich PRCs. Now not so with Brexit.
DeleteIrene Clennell didn't even need to do that - she married a British national and got her ILTR back in the day when it was so easy to get it. She just messed things up by choosing to move to Singapore for 11 years.
DeleteA very good article, which I thoroughly enjoyed reading, especially from the perspective of a British expat living here in the Little Red Dot.
ReplyDeleteIt was my conception from the very start that there must be more than meets the eye in this particular case. I did my maths, too, and wondered why she simply did not apply for British citizenship somewhere down the line. I am not familiar with the rules in place back in the 90s, but nowadays when married to a Briton the foreign national spouse needs to have lived in the UK for only three years. If you pass the test and demonstrate strong family links, you should be naturalised without a problem.
Yet there is of course the, in my eyes, most probably true reason behind it: money combined with an exit strategy of an estranged wife. Irene Clennell knew that she could only own an HDB flat as a national of Singapore, no assumptions there strangely enough. Rather than raise her own two sons in the UK, she chose by her own free will to return to Singapore. Selling her Yishun 4 BR flat in 2009 must have been a nice little earner. Today, they go for anything from about $450 k or roughly just under £260 k upwards. Where did that money go to?
There are too many inconsistencies and unanswered questions. In a nutshell: Whether you agree with the laws or not, she broke them. The Home Office still decides on a case for case basis but hers was simply not strong enough. Irene Clennell is “blur sotong”.
Hello Ang Mo. I'm actually from Ang Mo Kio, but now living in Camden, North London.
DeleteThanks for your comment
Onto the topic.
Having dealt with the system before (ie. the Home Office), yeah I knew there was more than meets the eye when the story first emerged - fake news much? Or just poor journalism? On the subject of foreign spouses, it was a lot easier to bring a foreign spouse into the country in the early 90s, Back then few people did that route and the numbers were not so high that the government got paranoid about immigration - as for today, well, paranoia about immigration is at a fever pitch, but it is still possible, just a bit harder (as you've described) - there's also a UK citizenship test and a basic English test. I was given a waiver for the English test as I graduated from a British university and the UK citizenship test was so easy it was taking the piss. Let me give you an example of a question:
What is celebrated on 25th December in the UK?
A) New Year's Day
B) Easter
C) Christmas
D) Valentine's Day
Irene has showed up all guns blazing on this blog, so you can ask her yourself about your theory of the estranged wife (which I grant you, you're not the first to have raised that theory). She spent so much time away from her husband and kids, one would at least raise some questions about the state of her 'family life' - now normally, most people would say, "mind your own business" but in this case, the Home Office needs to know if there is evidence of family life, rather than just as some have postulated "a marriage of convenience". From the evidence, it doesn't look like a marriage of convenience but there's certainly some problems in that marriage. Whether or not it was enough for the Home Office to deny her a visa to return to the UK, well that's their call not mine.
Good question about the nearly quarter of a million pounds. If her intention was to return to the UK in the long run, she could have bought a nice house with that money to retire in (not in London but outside London and other city centers, easily). But there's clearly money in that family, she clearly isn't the grandma with £12 in her pocket - once again, this family is trying so hard to whip up public sympathy and I am aghast at how dumb the public is when it comes to confirmation bias. Calling her a blur sotong is letting her off the hook - that's pleading stupidity when this woman is not stupid but dishonest. She is a liar.
Also, please see sibylla's comment below. Cheers.
Thank you for this most excellent corrective; it is pretty mindboggling how bad the media coverage of this has been.
ReplyDeleteThere are a couple of other niggling things that have been bothering me. She has variously been quoted as saying she has 'no family in Singapore', 'three sisters in Singapore', and 'one sister but she lives in India'. Yet when she arrived in Singapore, she was met by two of her sisters at the airport - there is photographic proof of this in the Straits Times.
In the meantime her sister-in-law has posted an update on the crowdfunding page, responding to some commenters who pointed out that Irene has not lived 30 years in the UK as claimed. The SIL clarified that Irene lived in the UK between her marriage in 1990 and 1992, then 1999-2001, 2003-2005, tried to return in 2007 but was detained and deported, returned again in 2013. And claims this has been made clear to everyone the family has spoken to, but has not changed her erroneous headline statement of '30 years'.
Separately I saw a video interview with both the SIL and the husband and in it, the husband actually says, "I don't see what the issue is, she is a British citizen." Pretty delusional huh.
To respond to some of your points above. Having violated the (clear) terms of her ILR, she is free to apply again but they don't qualify under the current (again very clear) rules as they do not fulfil the income requirements. That's the exact same reason Singapore would most likely not entertain any application by the husband for long-term residence on the island. Unless they really do manage to harness public hysteria to dupe the Home Office, the only route I can see is Surinder Singh - that the husband could exercise his rights as a EU national to bring in a non-EU spouse. But that would require the husband establishing residence (living and working) in another EU state for a fixed period of time (3 or 6 months, I forget which exactly).
Amazing how so many people think that rules just don't apply to them. Did you see the latest KPKB story in the Guardian? French-Scottish family to quit UK due to Brexit is the headline. But if you read the story, it turns out, the correct headline should be 'French father with British wife and kid is rejected for PR because he didn't qualify due to exceeding permitted absence from UK, hence quitting the country in a huff' - but that doesn't sound quite as sexy does it. He argues that he has been in the country since 1990 but only later adds the important detail that he left the country between 2012 and 2015 and therefore the clock stopped and all the time between 1990 and 2012 didn't count anymore.
Final comment. It's actually not as abnormal as you think for couples to live apart and still be happily married. I actually know of many such people and one couple even managed to produce a baby despite them living in two different countries at the time. It is an inevitable result of globalisation and jobs not always being found in the right place at the right time. I myself live many time zones apart from my immediate family but we Facetime every day and this way I actually have more contact with them than with my housemates, who I can go weeks without seeing.
Hi sibylla, yes Buzzfeed is shit. They should have a little more self-respect or risk being labelled fake news - okay this story isn't fake, but the coverage of it has been appallingly bad. And for other news websites and newspapers to just cut & paste the story from Buzzfeed, holy shit - that's unreal how shit journalism has become.
DeleteAnd yeah 2 sisters at Changi airport - that woman is a liar, but we knew that. I bet she was gonna muttering, "I'll see you later, don't be photographed with me, I told the reporters I have nobody in Singapore."
The sister in law is a nasty, big fat liar and I'm this close to filing a police report on her for fraud - except the "victims" in this case are idiotic left-wing Brits who are given to confirmation bias. I actually have very left-wing friends (why do I have friends like that I wonder - like I swear 90% of my friends are lefties) who donated because they just love a good Tory-bashing article, "the government is evil!" and they don't want to check the facts - why let facts get in the way of a good pity party, a good Tory-bashing session? There's a part of me that thinks, if you're so bloody stupid and given to confirmation bias, then you deserve to be scammed and parted with your hard earned money you idiots.
Ref: Surinder Singh: that's 3 months, not impossible. Q.E.D IMHO, but wait, part of Irene's story is that she claimed that she needs to care for her sick husband. If her husband suddenly go gets a job in Dublin or Paris for example, then people would be like, "wait a minute, one moment you were deathly ill you needed a carer, now you're working abroad? WTF?" But of course he isn't that ill - Irene and Angela are lying through their teeth, as usual. He looks fat and probably has some of the usual problems that someone of that age and slightly overweight would have, but not so ill he can't work.
Anyway, gotta get to my next meeting. Laterz people.
And one more point if I may: if two adults want to have a long distance relationship, that's none of our business and it is up to them to make it work (Facetime/Skype etc). But if you have young children involved, then that's really unfair to the poor kids who are deprived of their mother's love for so many years at such a tender age. I feel sorry for the kids when the parents are separated like that. Adults are a different story, but kids have greater needs.
DeleteNew rules was implemented july 2012. You got your facts incorrect too!
ReplyDeleteOK I have corrected that in the article. I may have gotten that small detail wrong because I googled it and tried to verify the date, the article I read was discussing the new rule but the article was dated 2014. But it was talking about a law that was implemented in 2012, but I was in a hurry and made a mistake. That's the kind of error a writer can make - that's a far cry from the way Angela Clennell and Irene Clennell lied about the facts of this case to the media.
DeleteInteresting article, it tallys well with the statements of the mother of her granddaughter
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, if she did give up her Singapore citizenship, she would NOT have been granted an expatriate visa to live and work here. The Singapore Immigration department is very strict on this. People who give up their Singapore PR status or citizenship can say goodbye to returning to Singapore, except as a tourist.
ReplyDeleteBut Debs, was she looking to work in Singapore? No she wasn't. She claimed she was caring for her sick, elderly parents then - unless anyone has found any evidence otherwise of her working in Singapore, she wasn't "employed" as a carer as such but whatever she did was a private arrangement between her and her parents. So she didn't require any kind of work permit to do that esp if her parents were effectively her employer. She could have done that on a tourist visa - valid for 30 days and take day trips to JB or Bintan each time she got close to the 30 day limit.
DeleteBut Debs, there are ways around it. This article is about Irene not me, but I worked in Singapore as a British expat in 2011 despite being having given up my pink IC years before. It is technically complex (my employers were HQed in Luxembourg) but it can be done if you're a highly skilled professional and worth the trouble for your employers. I doubt Irene Clennell is a highly skilled professional though - I don't even think she has a career. So it's one set of rules for highly skilled foreign talents and another set for ordinary plebs? You bet. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
hi limpeh I have a question. how did you manage to transfer Singapore citizenship to Britain citizenship?. is it difficult? because my mom says I can't transfer citizenship to other countries
ReplyDeleteSigh. From our previous conversations here, I think we have established that your mother isn't particular intelligent, isn't highly educated and is wrong about a lot of things. Just because she claims something doesn't mean it is true - in this case, your mother is spouting rubbish again. You have to get used to it - your mother isn't highly educated, she will say a lot of things that are plain wrong. This is not because she is deliberately trying to lie to you or mislead you but because she is, well, quite stupid and it is not her fault.
DeleteYour mom doesn't know the first thing about this. Get used to it. You will soon become more highly educated than her and you will soon realize when she is talking rubbish. You don't need to put her down or tell her she is stupid - just reach for your phone and look things up on Google. You can simply do a Google search and verify the facts because let's face it, your mum talks a lot of bullshit. As did my mother. I ignore my mother's bullshit and just google facts.
I have written a long piece on emigrating to the UK here: http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/why-i-gave-up-my-pink-ic.html Thousands of Singaporeans move abroad, get new passports and give up their Singaporean citizenship. It is done all the time.
Please for your own sanity, do not believe everything your mother says. If she is dumb enough to tell you that you can't transfer your citizenship, then she's quite frankly an idiot. And you're a bigger idiot if you believed her bullshit.
Does anyone realise Irene Clenell and or James looks quite abnormal? In fact the entire family i.e. husband and SIL does? And why there's no input from her kids? Something's not right. The British legal system is known for its strong rule of law and sense of natural justice, I think they've given her ample opportunity.
ReplyDeleteThat's right, no input from the kids at all? Not a single word from her husband? Why is the sister-in-law the 'spokesperson' running the campaign and not her husband or her own grown up children? Of course something is wrong, once you take a closer look. They are counting on the fact that many people are angry with the government in the UK at the moment are exploiting this confirmation bias. I actually have had friends who donated to Angela Clennell without double checking the facts about the case and when I pointed it out to them, did they thank me? Nope. Cos I made them feel stupid about their mistake and they don't care if Irene Clennell has lied - they just want to fuel their sense of victimhood and rebellion. The whole case leaves me disheartened with a) the terrible media (I've written to Buzzfeed, no reply yet) and b) the dumb confirmation-bias British public.
DeleteHere's a very long piece but at least we get more information about the background. This time the Buzzfeed reporter did come clean about the extended periods that Irene has spent in Singapore and India whilst being locked out of the UK https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilydugan/irene-clennell-exile-singapore?utm_term=.maM3kQVdB#.sbadG1n2E I'm still not forgiving Angela Clennell for being the big fat liar she is for making that bold 30 years in the UK claim.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt looks like Irene Clennel wanted the best of both worlds, she could be in UK benefits and cashing on carer's allowance to care for her "sick husband" @£55/week basic rate. She could very well also be getting rental income from her HDB flat and lived with her sisters whilst in Singapore. Her story didn't bode well. She has made her bed so she has to lie in it.
ReplyDeleteThere are some interesting details in the new buzzfeed article, including her estrangement from her older son (which she blames on the Home Office) and the revelation that she could not keep her sons in sgp because her husband would not allow it.
ReplyDeletePlus her comment that she doesn't dare go out because she feels her accent sticks out. Irene if you are reading this, I hate to break this to you but I have watched your interview with ST. You sound 100percent Singaporean (and in fact not just that but distinctly Singaporean with ethnic Indian origins). If that is the way you speak in Britain (nothing wrong with it, it is perfectly clear and understandable) no Brit would ever consider it a "local" accent.
@Debs : not true that you cannot return to sgp if you renounce your citizenship. I have friends who renounced, withdrew cpf and became australian. Then later they were offered a job in sgp and came back on employment pass. No problem at all. Ditto those who lost sgp PR - yes sgp PR is not permanent, one of the conditions is you have to pay tax! So my friend lost his but years later when a new job was offered he got the PR back, again no issue.
On the hdb flat : think i saw in ST a mention that she sold it in 2008?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteClennell's story is simply one of a person who feels the rules don't apply to them. I'm guessing mild narcissism is a part of her character and when she doesn't get her way, she tries to marshal group opinion against those who are stopping her from getting what she wants.
ReplyDeleteIf you are going to be kwai lan, then at least be careful about it.
Thanks Ian, I couldn't agree more. Akan datang part 2.
DeleteSend me a mail at irenejames152@yahoo.com
DeleteI look forward to it!
ReplyDeleteLimpeh, these days everything needs to be viewed through the Brexit lens , and we should ask ourselves what would happen if this occured in 3 years time. Presently British Citizens with non EU spouses are treated as second class citizens by their country, the Blair Government successfully lobbied for the clauses in 2004/38/EC that permit this, no other country in Europe relies on those provisions to oppress their people. If Mr Clennell had instead of being British, had been French , Mrs Clennell would have had a carte de familie and would be free to go back and forth and live in the UK. I, like many with non EU spouses voted to exit because we are sick of bearing the brunt of the Governments efforts to deflect attention from the unbridled EU immigration, by controlling the movement of our spouses under ever increasingly difficult conditions. It is a very sad fact that it far easier for a Frenchman to bring his Singaporean wife to live permanently in the UK than it is an Englishman. Hopefully Brexit will level the present far from level playing field and Mr &Mrs Clennell will be treated as if they were French.
ReplyDeleteHi Fred,
DeleteIrene Clennell had every opportunity to naturalize as a British citizen after she was granted ILTR in 1992 - but she didn't want to. Instead, she squandered the opportunity by living in Singapore for 11 years from 1992 to 2003. So it wasn't like she was denied the opportunity to live here or become British, quite simply she broke the rules and thought that somehow it didn't apply to her. Loads of Singaporeans with British spouses (including myself) are happily living here because we follow the rules. What is stopping John Clennell from going to live in France then (as an EU citizen) and then exercising his right to bring his spouse into France? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. British citizens with non-EU spouses can indeed bring their spouses into the country but the government makes the rules, you don't. Follow the government's rules and you'll be fine. John and Irene Clennell foolishly ignored the rules and found themselves on the wrong side of the law.
And Fred, after Brexit, a Frenchman would be able to bring his non-EU spouse into the country if he is working here legally: that is the case in any country. Fred, if you get a job say in Singapore and you have a wife, then your wife can join you in Singapore. No problem. The rules of immigration in Singapore allow that. Likewise if a Singaporean man gets a job in the UK, his wife and kids automatically gain the right to live here because his work permit allows that and Singapore is as far removed from the EU as you can get. Post-Brexit, the Clennell's case would remain status quo - he still can't bring his wife into the country because they flouted the rules set by HM government, it has nothing to do with the EU.
You are quite mistaken if you think Brexit is gonna change anything.
The only difference I suppose is that a lowly skilled, lowly educated French national would no longer be able to gain access to the UK job market. So he won't be able to say come to London and work in McDonald's for barely the minimum wage. Yeah Brexit will shut out those kinds of migrants, however, if we're dealing with a French investment banker who commands a very high salary, then he will be able to bring his wife and kids with him into the UK when he gets that work permit. In short, not all French expats are the same: are you talking about those who earn £18,600 a year or £1.86 million a year? So post Brexit, your poor French economic migrant cannot even get a work permit to work in the UK, never mind bring his non-EU wife over whilst for the rich French expat, it is business as usual.
DeleteIn any case, according to the government's current rules, John can't bring his wife into the UK anyway because he earns less than £18,600 a year and has assets worth less than £64,000. Brexit isn't going to get rid of that rule - it is merely going to kick out poorer, unskilled economic migrants from Europe. If you have a problem with this rule, take it up with the Tory government because this has nothing to do with the EU. Article 50, triggering Brexit, has nothing to do with this rule at all and this rule isn't going anywhere.
So like I said, you're very mistaken if you think Brexit is going to change anything. Brexit means the UK leaving the EU - it doesn't mean you'll somehow get the golden opportunity to correct everything that you're not happy with at the moment with the British government. Why? Because a lot of the problems in the UK originate in the UK and often the fault lies with the government, not the EU. Brexit will make you realize you can't blame the EU for everything.
Dear Limpeh, it has everything to with the EU, prior to 2006, there were no arbitary earning limits. The unbridled mass EU immigration, caused the Government to control what it was allowed to; non EU spouses, students and non EU work permits. Unfrotunately the last two group have strong, rich lobbyists so the group that have taken the brunt are non EU spouses. You do not dispute that had Mr Clennell been French, the pattern of entry into the UK would have been acceptable . Similarly if her husband had been a Singaporean work permit holder she would be with him now. The only reason she is not in the UK now is because the husband is poor and British. I earn a lot, I used to work in Singapore and now work in Malaysia (because it pays better). I used to return to the UK every other year with my non EU wife and British kids every 2years , I stopped in 2010 as the form filling for my wifes visa reached stupid levels, I hate what my country has become since 2006. You are correct the EU is not the problem, the problem is how the Government reacts to being in the EU, no other Country in Europe goes out of its way to treat its own citizens worse than EU ones, but the UK government does. In Singapore, the Singapore Government actively goes out of its way to treat its citizens better than others, I hope that Brexit causes the UK government to realise that is what it must also do.
DeleteWell Fred, whatever arrangement you and your wife wanna have is your business, it is not for me to comment. I only wanna contest your praise of the Singapore govt - I left Singapore precisely because I didn't want to spend my life there as a second class citizen. I had to serve NS, 2 yrs 4 mths of my life gone like that - then if I had remained a Singaporean I would have had endless reservist cycles to do NS + having to compete with foreign workers with no reservist obligations? Good grief. It isn't a level playing field for male Singaporeans and they are soooo screwed by the system there. I'm gladly working alongside Eastern European foreign talents and welcome the competition as I am competing with them on a level playing field - whereas in Singapore, I'd have to compete against foreigners with no NS obligations and no CPF obligations either. The Singapore government actively goes out of its way to screw male Singaporeans with a giant dildo everyday - most Singaporean men just bend over and take it because they want to stay in Singapore for a variety of reasons. Most of them are pussies who don't dare to work abroad or can't get a work permit abroad even if they wanted to, others feel the need to be with their families etc, the Singaporean government is counting on enough male Singaporeans to bend over and take that big dildo. You were a foreign talent there, you had a good deal - the local males don't get a deal as sweet as yours.
DeleteAnd like I said, you sure have some axes to grind with the Tory government - let me remind you that Brexit isn't going to make the government sit up and do whatever you wish it would do. Damn I have an equally long wish-list but no event (no not even Brexit) is gonna make my wish-list come true. You're just dreaming buddy. Dream on, it ain't gonna happen. Change comes slowly and you're going to fight hard for the things you want. You can't expect the government just to change overnight and give you everything on your Christmas list just because of Brexit. I wonder where you got that optimism from - none of us in London are that optimistic. Duh.
@Fred, i'm born, raised and currently residing in Singapore. I don't know what you are smoking to claim that our government treat citizens better than foreigners. From what i'm aware being a permanent resident (UK equivalent of the ILR) can get you the best of both worlds. Not only can you work, buy subsidised HDB (council apartments) and get to enjoy subsidised education and healthcare at the same rate as citizens.
DeletePRs also don't have to serve national service and can choose to retire back at their home countries. The only thing a PR can't do is vote, but based on the record since independence I doubt that is a privilege, more of a shitshow really since PAP always wins.
It is an open secret that foreign MNC setup shop here to enjoy the generous grants, infrastructure and low corporate taxes and hire almost exclusively foreigners. The main reason local males are a liability is because we have to go back for national service 1x a year for up to 10 years and the company still has to pay you your full pay since it is illegal under SG's enlistment act to deduct your pay or refuse to release you for service.
Maybe just because Singapore is so welcoming to foreigners, including foreign spouses (including mail order brides from Philippines, Vietnam, etc) you assume the government treats its citizens well. How about some concrete examples from you?
@Choaniki there is this for a start ; http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/increase-in-school-fees-for-non-citizens-from-2017/3196482.html
ReplyDelete@Limpeh, I have no axe to grind against the present Tory government, only those who treacherously illegally signed the various EU treaties from which we will now exit, those being Major, Blair and Brown, if there were any justice they would all hang for their crimes. (An appreciation of British history and law is required to understand this comment, which I'm guessing you do not have). As for a level playing field in the UK jobs market... I nearly fell off my chair laughing, if you are not a NBD PSB or a foreigner, you have no hope of sucession, this is the principle reason for the size of the British diaspora spread to the four corners of the world. The US, Canada, Australia, don't require RP or plastic Estuary to progress, in the UK the preface to Pygmallion applies and always will do. Open your eyes and learn some more about where you really are.
@Fred this is a pretty weak example and has only taken effect recently. So foreigners have paid $20 more for school fee for these 3 months boohoo.
DeleteYou know I have a classmate from China who has been studying in Singapore since primary school days. The whole family refuses to apply for PR and pays full rates just so that they don't owe anything to the SG government. Her brother also does not need to serve NS as he is neither 1st or 2nd gen PR. If I were him I would gladly pay the extra fees to have to never undergo 2.5 + 10 years of NS.
Heck I bet LIFT would do the same and he has only served 2.5yrs. I did the full 10 yrs reservist cycle since I never left Singapore.
OK, without making this a Life of Brian repeat how about:
DeleteBaby bonus
Paternity leave
University fees
Silver support scheme
Skills future credit,
Discounted housing
Faast entry and exit at airport
My, my what have the Romans ever done for us...
Ok Fred, i'll bite, let's run thru your list line by line shall we?
DeleteBaby bonus scheme: This is an incentive by the government to increase birthrate and nothing to do with rewarding Singapore citizens. As long as the baby is registered as a Singapore citizens, technically both parents can be PR (permanent residents) and enjoy the bonus. Also single parents don't enjoy this bonus regardless of whether the child is a Singapore citizen, so how do you explain that?
The same can be said for paternity leave, maternity or childcare leave as singles and single parents don't get to enjoy them regardless of citizenship.
University fees I have already mentioned in my previous post. If you get PR you can enjoy subsidised fees for education but in return you need to serve NS.
Silver support: This is targeted to lower income single citizens who do not have anyone else to support them. Again nothing to do with your citizenship status since I doubt many would qualify and it can never be construed as a reason for surrendering your other citizenship.
Skill future is in its infancy (2nd year since launch) and I would rather there be a proper point system for migrant workers and minimum wage than this broken system. Since this is technically "free money" most training centre inflate their costs by $500 so you aren't getting a better deal.
Discounted housing: this is dependent on your income level and like I mentioned in my previous post PR can enjoy this too.
Fast entry and exit: so you are scraping the bottom of the barrel now? Which country doesn't give quick entry and exit to it citizens? Then again PRs and frequent flyers who signed up for the APEC business travel card get to enjoy quick airport clearance too.
None of the reasons you listed are reasons why someone has converted to a Singaporean for. Maybe we can ask a foreigner, like maybe LIFT, if he is enticed by your list to regain his citizenship.
Hi Choaniki - in direct response to your question, no way - no fucking way. I left Singapore for greener pastures and I found them, I'm happy where I am. But I would like to refer you guys to my article http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/what-is-best-in-world.html where I point out that it is pointless to talk about which is the best country in the world because that question will yield a different answer for different people you ask, because different people have different needs. I left Singapore because I was desperately unhappy in Singapore, I didn't get along with my parents and I felt I had a point to prove by making myself a success in another country, far far away from Singapore. A lot of the reasons why I left is not just about finding a 'better country', but escaping a country where I had a truly miserable childhood - okay, I found solace in sports and my studies (both of which I excelled at) - but nothing can change the fact that my parents are both well and truly autistic and it was so suffocating, growing up under their rules which often made no sense to me, but they had constructed in their heads just to keep order a certain way.
DeleteHeck, even if I didn't end up in the UK, say I ended up working in a poor country like Vietnam or South Africa - guess what? I think my talents, intellect and skills would have meant that I would be okay job-wise, I would be financially stable and as long as I fulfill the key aim of getting the hell away from my family to prove a point, then I think I would be happy.
I am pleased to report that I have a formal and distant relationship with my family today, my parents barely ever talk to me but at least we're still on speaking terms. If I had lived in Singapore any longer than I had to, I'd probably had fallen out with them a long, long time ago and became mortal enemies. Not living in the same time zone as my parents is the only way I can get along with them.
@LIFT I think we are sidetracking to far from Fred's point. He posted that the Singapore government actively goes out to treat its citizens better which I strongly disagree.
DeleteHow about this Fred, if you think it is so fantastic being a Singaporean, how about you convert to one?
Yes, I did. I talked about my personal reasons for leaving Singapore rather than looking at how badly Singapore treats its own citizens. But I stand by what I said, I don't think that we should go round shopping for a country which treats its own citizens the 'best' - rather, we need to consider so many other factors about what will ultimately make us happy in life. Only the desperate, the weak, the poor, the unemployed need to depend on handouts from the governments and they are the last people to be able to move countries, to get a work permit in another country given their lack of skills. The most mobile, most educated, most highly skilled professionals are the ones who are most mobile to move from country to country, yet they are the least reliant on the government for any kind of handouts because they are already doing so well.
DeleteOh the irony. I digress. Let's see Fred make his sons serve NS. That'll be a laugh.
As the saying goes, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating."
DeleteFred came up with a list of things (some not even exclusive to Singapore or citizens) so he can feel better about slamming the current UK government. However i'm willing to bet many people from commonwealth countries would jump at the opportunity to get a ILR or citizenship from UK.
@Choaniki there is this for a start ; http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/increase-in-school-fees-for-non-citizens-from-2017/3196482.html
ReplyDelete@Limpeh, I have no axe to grind against the present Tory government, only those who treacherously illegally signed the various EU treaties from which we will now exit, those being Major, Blair and Brown, if there were any justice they would all hang for their crimes. (An appreciation of British history and law is required to understand this comment, which I'm guessing you do not have). As for a level playing field in the UK jobs market... I nearly fell off my chair laughing, if you are not a NBD PSB or a foreigner, you have no hope of sucession, this is the principle reason for the size of the British diaspora spread to the four corners of the world. The US, Canada, Australia, don't require RP or plastic Estuary to progress, in the UK the preface to Pygmallion applies and always will do. Open your eyes and learn some more about where you really are.
Fred, the playing field is never level because humans are not created equal. I take credit for my success today based on the unfair advantage I have as a human with superior intellect, skills and talents. I don't rely on the government or society to be 'fair' or help me. Call it dumb luck if you must, to be born somewhat more intelligent or talented than most average folks. By that token, I know I can rely on myself rather than hope for handouts from a government who takes pity and helps those who are struggling in life. It's that simple really.
Delete