Connect with us

Editorial

Gov’t continues to issue motherhood statements on CECA, but how does it actually benefit the average Singaporean?

Published

on

The question of how much Singaporeans benefit from the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA), it’s free trade agreement (FTA) with India, is one that crops up often in the public sphere.

It’s a conversation that rarely lets up in Singapore as some people slam the agreement for benefitting India more than it does Singapore, with many Indian nationals coming over to take up jobs here that many critics feel would otherwise go to the local talent pool.

Out of the 26 FTAs Singapore has with various countries, CECA is the one that attracts the most attention and criticism from the public.

Such a hot button issue also became of the key subject matter leading up to the 2020 General Election. Progress Singapore Party (PSP) Secretary General Dr Tan Cheng Bock said in a speech during the official party launch in 2019 that the PSP will ask the government to come up with a balance sheet for how CECA has benefitted Singapore.

“How many local jobs have gone to Indian professionals and how many Singaporeans have gone to India?” asked Dr Tan.

Though many questions have been put to the government over the years regarding the actual data pertaining to talent transfer between Singapore and India under the agreement, among other details, the government’s answers have been scarce.

In an interview with The Straits Times in August 2020, Trade and Industry Minister Chan Chun Sing addressed several “misconceptions” about the CECA. Though it was more detailed that previous clarifications from the government, it still lacked substantial details or data.

Though Mr Chan debunked the misconception that CECA grants Indian nationals unconditional access to Singapore and immigration privileges, he did reveal that when a company brings in intra-coperate transferees (ICTs), the agreement allows them to do so without having to first advertise the position to locals as part of the Fair Consideration Framework.

They do, however, have to still meet the employment pass criteria and have worked with the parent company for at least six month. Although, they transferees can stay in Singapore for a total of eight years at most.

On this point, however, Mr Chan did not get into details on just how many Indian nationals have been employed in Singapore under this agreement nor vice versa with Singaporeans in India.

Back in 2017, blogger and frequent commenter on issues in Singapore, Leong Sze Hian, had asked a question on this exact matter. Mr Leong highlighted the question raised by then-Non-constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Gerald Giam from Workers’ Party.

Then-Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr Lim Hng Kiang has responded in Parliament on 8 Oct 2014 that CECA has helped to create good jobs for Singaporeans. He added that CECA serves to bring conveniences to businesses by allowing temporary entry on both sides for certain categories of persons, including business visitors, professionals, and Intra-Corporate Transferees.

However, even then the exact numbers were not revealed.

Dr Joseph Teo in a letter published on TOC in September 2020 noted several “troubling statements” by Mr Chan as he ‘debunked’ of misconceptions around CECA.

Notably, Mr Chan has detailed how CECA advantages Indian nationals and companies and stressed that most of the 164 members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) have also made commitments on entry of ICTs under the General Agreement on Trade in Services”.

However, Dr Teo then wondered why there is a need for CECA since both Singapore and India are already part of the WTO.

He stressed, “I think that the full significance and impact of this agreement needs to be communicated to Singaporeans, including the number of people admitted into Singapore under this agreement, and in which sectors they are working. Only then can Singaporeans evaluate whether such an agreement is worth supporting.”

In his interview, Mr Chan had also explained how CECA has led to an increase of Singapore companies investing in India. But does this just illustrate how the Indian economy is benefitting from investments by Singapore companies?

Dr Teo also noted, “More to the point, Singaporeans don’t necessarily believe that CECA does not benefit the Singapore economy. What Singaporeans have been trying to tell the government is that CECA does not benefit the average Singaporean economically. All the government’s justifications do not address this point.”

Following from that, WP MP for Sengkang GRC Jamus Lim, who is an economics professor, penned down several reasons why CECA offers more gains to India rather than Singapore.

This includes points that have already been debated publicly, as well as noting the fact that India’s massive population will lead to a flood of Indian nationals into Singapore, more than the other way around.

“Mr Lim pointed out that while the Government said there Singapore companies will benefit from CECA as they will get better access to the Indian market, but there is “no assurance that the net benefits of trade are to be more equally distributed”.

Unfortunately, despite countless questions by various MPs as well as calls from the public for more transparency on how CECA actually benefits the average Singaporean, answers have not been forthcoming.

Till today, the government continues to make motherhood statements on how Singapore has benefited from the CECA agreement, but nothing has been revealed in detail.

What is CECA?

CECA first came into effect in August 2005, thought the intention was first announced by then-Prime  Minister Goh Chock Tong and India’s then-Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The two leaders had announced intentions to explore closer economic ties between the two nations with the aim of coming up with a comprehensive economic partnership.

Singapore fielded a 30-member negotiation team led by Heng Swee Keat, the permanent secretary for trade and industry, while India’s delegation was headed by Secretary of Commerce Dipak Chatterjee.

After 13 rounds of negotiation held in India and Singapore over the next three years, CECA was signed off in June 2005 when Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made a state visit to India.

According to the Enterprise Singapore website, one of the key benefits of CECA is a tariff reduction of 81% for Singapore-originating exports to India including products such as food, plastics, electronics, pharmaceuticals, and mechanical appliances.

There are criteria that have to be met, of course, including that at least 35% of the product content must originate from either Singapore or India for it to qualify for the tariff reduction.

Another aspect of CECA is that it provides for lateral transfers of professionals. Basically, citizens and permanent residents of either countries are guaranteed entry and stay in the other country as business visitors, short-term service suppliers, professionals hired directly by a company in Singapore, as well as intra-corporate transferees.

The agreement is comprehensive, as the name suggests, and does cover many facets of the economic partnership between Singapore and India, from investments to e-commerce, intellectual property, education, media, and science and technology and more.

 

 

Continue Reading
70 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
70 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Editorial

Undying Phoenix: TOC navigates regulatory restrictions with a revamped approach

Despite new regulations hindering operations, The Online Citizen Asia (TOC) views this as a chance to return to its roots, launching Gutzy Asia for Greater Asian news, while refocusing on Singapore. Inviting volunteer support, TOC’s commitment to truth and transparency remains unshakeable amidst these constraints.

Published

on

On 21 July 2023, the Ministry of Communications and Information, under the leadership of Minister Josephine Teo, declared The Online Citizen Asia’s (TOC) website and social media platforms as Declared Online Locations (DOL) according to the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (POFMA).

This decision follows a series of alleged false statements propagated by TOC, with the most recent incident reported on 2 May.

Amidst a politically charged environment characterized by scandals involving the People’s Action Party and increasing public mistrust towards the ruling government, TOC will continue to operate, albeit under significant constraints, despite the regulatory restrictions imposed.

The DOL declaration mandates that TOC must carry a public notice on its online platforms, which indicates its alleged history of disseminating misinformation.

The POFMA Office, however, clarified that TOC can continue its operations, retaining its website and social media pages under stringent regulations, particularly concerning monetization.

According to Part 5 of the POFMA, TOC is prohibited from gaining financial or material benefits from its operations. Additionally, offering financial support to TOC is equally unlawful. For the next two years, TOC will be compelled to self-sustain, relying solely on its resources without any public backing.

It strikes TOC as notably ironic that the Singapore government, eager to stymie our operations to prevent the spread of “fake news”, simultaneously demonstrates a fervour to invest S$900 million of taxpayer funds into the SPH Media Trust, currently embroiled in a data misrepresentation scandal. This dichotomy indeed presents a masterclass in cognitive dissonance.

Despite these significant constraints, TOC views this as an opportunity to revert to its roots, replicating the enthusiasm and drive that characterized our operation following our establishment in 2006.

Our existing staff will transition to a new publication, Gutzy Asia, focusing on news from Greater Asia, while TOC will refocus on its primary subject, Singapore, hence dropping the Asia subtext.

In this transition, we invite volunteers passionate about journalism and holding power to account to join us in our mission. We also welcome contributions from Singapore’s political parties, offering them a platform to express their perspectives and provide updates.

While this change may result in a decrease in content volume and frequency, we assure our supporters that our commitment to truth and transparency remains steadfast. We are legally obliged not to seek financial aid, but we hope our supporters will provide us with manpower and information support.

We are resolute in our decision to continue TOC’s operations, standing in defiance against attempts to silence dissent through lawsuits and intimidating regulations. We are here to serve the people, and we will continue our mission with determination and resilience.

To keep up to date with the publication: Follow The Online Citizen via telegram (Gutzy Asia’s posts are included)

Continue Reading

Editorial

Shanmugam, Balakrishnan, and the Code of Conduct: A Demand for Straight Answers

Editorial: Amid the recent controversy involving Singaporean ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan regarding the tenancy of two state properties, serious questions have surfaced about potential breaches of the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

Despite being renowned for high standards of governance, the lack of a clear response from the ministers themselves and the decision to pass the issue to a review committee chaired by a fellow party member has raised eyebrows. The crucial question remains: does leasing property from the Singapore Land Authority, an organization overseen by the minister in question, breach the Code of Conduct?

Published

on

In a country renowned for its high standards of governance, the recent controversy surrounding the tenancy of two state properties by Minister K Shanmugam and Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan has raised some perplexing questions.

Both ministers, tasked with the important responsibility of upholding the integrity of Singapore’s laws and foreign affairs, respectively, find themselves under scrutiny following allegations of a potential breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

Mr Shanmugam claimed in his statement on Tuesday (23 May) to have “nothing to hide” and encouraged questions.

However, the irony is palpable when we consider the simple question that remains unanswered: Does leasing from the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), an organization he oversees, breach the Ministerial Code of Conduct?

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s decision to initiate a review is commendable and necessary to maintain the high standards of integrity that are a cornerstone of the Singapore government.

However, having a fellow People’s Action Party Senior Minister, Teo Chee Hean, chair the review does raise some questions. Furthermore, it remains puzzling why a straightforward answer isn’t forthcoming from the ministers implicated in this issue.

Under Section 3 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct, it’s stipulated that a Minister must avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.

While we should refrain from jumping to conclusions before the review concludes, the public certainly has the right to question whether a Minister leasing public property could conceivably conflict with his public duty.

This predicament reflects an unprecedented evasion of responsibility, particularly from Mr Shanmugam, who has been vocal in demanding clear and direct responses from political opponents.

Now that the tables have turned, the nation awaits his clear and direct answer – does leasing the property at 26 Ridout Road contravene the Code of Conduct for ministers?

Instead of a straightforward response, we see the matter deferred to a review committee and promises of addressing the issue in Parliament, where the ruling People’s Action Party holds a supermajority. This is far from the accountability and directness we expect from a Minister, especially one overseeing Law and Home Affairs.

The question is simple and direct, yet the absence of a clear answer has inevitably raised eyebrows and triggered skepticism about our leaders’ transparency and accountability. It is incumbent upon Mr Shanmugam and Mr Balakrishnan to clear the air and restore public confidence by providing a simple “Yes” or “No” answer.

Do the two ministers not think that the average person will likely perceive a conflict of interest when ministers rent from a government agency under the Law Minister’s purview? Once such a perception exists, how can there be no breach of Clause 3 of the Ministerial Code?

Clause 3, analogous to the maxim that justice must not only be done but seen to be done, requires a Minister to avoid actual conflict of interest and apparent or perceived conflict of interest.

Parliamentary privilege and safe environments shouldn’t be an excuse for evading direct answers. Singaporeans deserve more than opaque explanations and bureaucratic deferrals; they deserve straightforward, honest responses from their public servants. This is a matter of trust, transparency, and, above all, integrity.

If there’s anything the public can perceive from the actions of the ministers so far, it’s how out of touch they appear to be with common folks – both in the matter of principle and the need for accountability – from atop their massive ivory towers on Ridout Road.

Continue Reading

Trending