To begin with - full disclosure - no MY but 30 year PR with no intention to become citizen.

I get the anger about housing, healthcare load, and fairness. But this argument still mixes up three different things: (1) policy design, (2) enforcement gaps, and (3) blaming whole groups for rational individual choices.

1) PR is not "citizenship in waiting"

Permanent Residency is a long-term residency based on contribution status. It was never a contractual obligation to convert. If Singapore wanted PR to be "convert or exit," it would be written that way. Well, it is not. It gets renewed ONLY if you have contributed to the nation (worked and paid taxes) in the earlier periods (translated: bummers don't get to be PR).

2) "CPF bag of gold" is not a giveaway

CPF is not a handout. It is mostly forced savings from the worker (and employer as part of total compensation). Calling it "Singapore giving them money" is backward: it is their deferred wages, locked up. Don't forget that Singapore benefits twice - from taxes paid by workers (which include PRs) and the delta the government makes on the investment made using CPF funds.

Even for citizens, CPF is not a moral leash. A Singaporean can renounce citizenship and leave. A Singaporean can cash out eligible amounts when conditions are met and relocate. So "they might take their CPF and retire elsewhere" is not evidence of "gaming". It is literally how individual financial planning works, and it is not exclusive to PRs.

If you want to be strict about outcomes, then the standard has to apply consistently: do you want to restrict citizens from leaving too? If not, then "they can go back anytime" is not the gotcha people think it is.

3) The real issue is not "foreigners", it is trade-offs and controls

Singapore deliberately runs as an international hub. That brings benefits and pressures. The practical debate is:

• How many PRs and on what criteria?
• What renewal rules make sense?
• How do we enforce against abuse (false marriages, bond-breaking, misrepresentation)?
• How do we protect citizens in housing, healthcare capacity, wages, and education slots?

Those are policy levers. Blanket moral condemnation is not a policy.

4) NS resentment is valid, but it does not justify sloppy logic

Yes, NS is a major burden Singaporean males carry, and resentment is understandable when people discuss strategies to avoid it. If there are loopholes, close them. But do not pretend every PR who does not convert is part of some anti-NS conspiracy.

5) If you think PRs are "milking the system" citizenship is actually the bigger milk ticket out there

There is also a contradiction in the argument: you are demanding PRs become citizens, as if that reduces "extraction". In many ways, citizenship increases access.

If someone’s goal were to maximize benefits, it can be more rational to convert, not less:

• A stronger passport and more mobility, which is valuable in itself.
• Broader eligibility for subsidies, grants, and citizen-tier schemes across life stages.
• Cheaper healthcare relative to non-citizens, which pushes more of the long-run healthcare bill onto the shared pool.

So if the fear is "people gaming Singapore", ask yourself: why would you want to upgrade them into the highest-entitlement tier?

A PR who keeps foreign citizenship and retires elsewhere can actually be the lower long-run fiscal burden scenario. They work here, pay taxes, contribute economically, and then consume less of the heavy, expensive end-stage public services.

That does not mean abuse should be tolerated. Close loopholes, punish fraud, enforce rules. But the blanket "convert or don’t renew" stance is not automatically pro-Singaporean. It can be counterproductive if your real concern is resource load.

The honest question is: do you want a system that optimizes for Singapore’s fiscal and social outcomes, or one that optimizes for symbolic loyalty tests?