John will suffer stroke when he sees ah neh tarma his daughters in his house
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Serious It's Official! CECA Creates Good Jobs For Sinkies! PAP Rebuts PSP Lies! Oppie Bock Really Lose Face Today!
- Thread starter JohnTan
- Start date
Rent seeking economy since the super Mega residential property investment boom started from 2003.
More tenant occupants are needed to fill the vacant residential properties.
Tapping CECA for tenant occupants rather than their FT to create jobs for Singapore, CAQ Loong has had betrayed Singaporeans.
Tannie, u shd know better than us...
we are all been conned,
tannie is no towkay, he is probably a CECA defending pappies in this forum,
one post 50cts
would Ong Ye Kung agree with the statement:
Indian companies operating in Singapore have abused the inter-corporate transfer clause and caused an influx of Indian nationals into Singapore depriving Singaporeans and other nationals of a fair chance at Employment.
Please provide the total number of Indian Nationals brought in to date under this clause since the inception of the trade agreement.
Indian companies operating in Singapore have abused the inter-corporate transfer clause and caused an influx of Indian nationals into Singapore depriving Singaporeans and other nationals of a fair chance at Employment.
Please provide the total number of Indian Nationals brought in to date under this clause since the inception of the trade agreement.
Then Ah Neh will have to call 995 for an ambulance .
OKY : What is the purpose behind these questions ???
Won't the MOM know how many corporate transfers are here as they have to issue such passes? N y r such transfers not under the fair consideration frame work? So tat means a company can have 100% transferees? N also the dependents can be employed? How many dependents are working in singkieland?
4,200 intra-corporate transferees in S'pore last year, number remains consistently small: Tan See Leng
SINGAPORE - There were 4,200 intra-corporate transferees working in Singapore last year, a number that has remained consistently small, said Manpower Minister Tan See Leng in Parliament on Tuesday (July 6).
About 500 of these foreign employees brought in from the overseas offices of multinational corporations (MNCs) are from India.
This is out of 177,000 Employment Pass (EP) holders in Singapore, he added.
Dr Tan was presenting a ministerial statement on free trade agreements (FTAs) and foreign workers in Parliament, touching on issues such as intra-corporate transferees that have been a point of contention.
Intra-corporate transferees are overseas employees at an MNC who have worked for at least a year in the company, before being posted to a branch or subsidiary in Singapore.
Companies that want to fill a role with an intra-corporate transferee are exempted from the Fair Consideration Framework requirement that requires firms to advertise jobs on MyCareersFuture.sg, before submitting EP and S Pass applications.
But the transferee still has to meet the prevailing work pass criteria before they are allowed to work in Singapore.
Dr Tan said: "None of our FTAs, including the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (Ceca), gives intra-corporate transferees unfettered access to our labour market."
He added that such employees are subject to additional checks on their seniority, employment history and work experience. They are also subject to more conditions on their eligibility to bring in dependants, and apply for permanent residency or future employment in Singapore.
"If they have brought in dependants, the dependants do not have automatic rights to work here. They can only do so if they qualify for a work pass on their own merits," he said.
Intra-corporate transferees are a common feature of FTAs globally to allow for the movement of professionals for short periods to set up offices or for ad hoc projects, for instance.
Dr Tan said: "The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) has made Indian nationals coming in through Ceca a focus of contention. I am afraid the PSP has been barking up the wrong tree.
"The number of intra-corporate transferees coming in under our FTAs, and in particular Ceca, is very small relative to our total number of EPs. I suggest we set aside this red herring and move on to the heart of the matter."
He added that there is no such category as "professional visas", but that all 127 categories of professionals under Ceca currently come in under the regular work pass framework.
He noted how the economy has grown from a gross domestic product of $20 billion at the start of the 1970s to $454 billion today.
Foreign workers account for about a third of Singapore's workforce.
More than 2.3 million locals are employed, and the resident unemployment rate is 4.1 per cent, half of what it was in 1970.
"Singaporeans are pragmatic, and understand that we need to remain open to global talent. However, they also face real challenges," he said.
Shit skin land has made demands for free flow of labour to ang mor countries n it always fell through. Only singkieland allows it.
Heng himself was the chief negotiator representing Singapore to negotiate with India over the terms in CECA. It was finally signed in 2005.
Heng recalled that his Indian counterparts were “very keen” on the chapter in question, “They said, ‘What do we get?’ Well, I said no… you have a population that’s over a billion; Singapore has a population of, at that time, probably about 3 odd million. And I said we will be easily swamped, so we must have very strict agreements on this.”
“I never let go, and we got what we needed,” Heng said.
“Let us have an open attitude to work with countries around the world who are willing to cooperate and work with us.”
Many Singaporeans have criticised clauses in the chapter regarding the movement of natural persons in CECA for paving the way for Indian professionals to take jobs from locals. The PAP government has repeatedly said that nothing in CECA interferes with its ability to regulate immigration and foreign manpower.
But still, it was revealed that the proportion of Indian nationals among EP holders grew from 14 percent in 2005 to 25 percent at the end of last year. Manpower Minister Tan See Leng attributed the huge increase in the number of Indian professionals in Singapore over the last 15 years to market demand for tech talents rather than CECA.
Tan, however, did not reveal any breakdown for S Pass holders, who are mid-level foreign skilled staff earning at least $2,500 a month.
India wants to see free movement of professionals to Singapore
In any case, 5 years after CECA was signed, India was still harping over the chapter on movement of natural persons inside CECA.
In 2010, at the time when India and Singapore were reviewing CECA, India told Singapore that allowing immediate free movement of skilled people and substantially higher investment in India’s capital markets are essential for the survival of CECA with Singapore. This was reported by Indian media Financial Express on 26 May 2010.
India was unhappy over the pace of the opening up of services and capital investment, despite five years of operation of the agreement.
At the time, Financial Express quoted a commerce ministry official saying there would be many Indian doctors, architects, engineers and nurses wanting to go to Singapore to work.
“The CECA between India and Singapore was signed in August 2005. According to the agreement in services, the two countries agreed to allow free movement of IT professionals, chartered accountants, architects, engineers and doctors,” Financial Express reported.
And subsequently in 2013, Indian media Business Standard reported that changes to the Employment Pass Framework law by Singapore irked India as the new law does not give India a preferential treatment incorporated in the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CECA) between the two countries, operational since 2005.
“This stance by the Singapore Government is expected to affect Indians working as middle-level managers, executives and technicians.” Business Standard reported.
“Speculations are rife that India might take up the issue with World Trade Organization’s (WTO) dispute settlement body. However, according to Singapore such a decision was imperative in the interest of the natives as the share of the foreign workforce is rising very rapidly.”
Business Standard reported that Indian officials involved in the negotiations said that this is a violation of the services trade agreement under CECA. This will also adversely affect Indians who are working there as it might lead to job losses, especially for the middle level workers.
According to the media outlet, India submitted a request to Singapore for addressing the matter but has not received a formal communication yet.
As of the time of report, there were about 200,000 non-resident Indians in Singapore working in ITES, financial services and scientific research sectors among others, according to one estimate.
Singapore recognises nursing degrees from India
In 2018, the review was finally concluded with new additions to CECA. Even though the new CECA enhancement included expanding tariff concessions for an additional 30 products, it also quietly recognises nursing degrees from 7 Indian education institutes by Singapore.
Singapore’s MTI only briefly mentioned that both countries have “agreed to a Mutual Recognition Agreement on Nursing to facilitate better understand of the Parties’ standards in regulating the training and practice of nursing” in the annex section of its press release.
However, the Indian government was more specific. It said in its press release that Singapore has started recognising nursing degrees from 7 of its education institutions.
The Business Standard of India also reported that it will be “easier for domestic nurses to explore employment opportunities in Singapore now, as India has signed mutual recognition agreement (MRA) with the south east Asian nation in this sector”.
And the Hindu said that India has formalized a MRA in nursing with Singapore which would allow “nurses trained in seven nursing institutions across India to gain employment in the South-East Asian country (Singapore)”.
Currently, Singapore has already started negotiating with India again in further enhancements to CECA in a new review.
Later CECA reviews show India continually wants more professionals to work in S'pore - The Online Citizen Asia
During the Parliamentary debate over the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) on Tue (6 Jul), Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat said that the clauses in the agreement on the movement of natural persons were not used as a bargaining chip in settling the free trade pact.Heng himself was the chief negotiator representing Singapore to negotiate with India over the terms in CECA. It was finally signed in 2005.
Heng recalled that his Indian counterparts were “very keen” on the chapter in question, “They said, ‘What do we get?’ Well, I said no… you have a population that’s over a billion; Singapore has a population of, at that time, probably about 3 odd million. And I said we will be easily swamped, so we must have very strict agreements on this.”
“I never let go, and we got what we needed,” Heng said.
“Let us have an open attitude to work with countries around the world who are willing to cooperate and work with us.”
Many Singaporeans have criticised clauses in the chapter regarding the movement of natural persons in CECA for paving the way for Indian professionals to take jobs from locals. The PAP government has repeatedly said that nothing in CECA interferes with its ability to regulate immigration and foreign manpower.
But still, it was revealed that the proportion of Indian nationals among EP holders grew from 14 percent in 2005 to 25 percent at the end of last year. Manpower Minister Tan See Leng attributed the huge increase in the number of Indian professionals in Singapore over the last 15 years to market demand for tech talents rather than CECA.
Tan, however, did not reveal any breakdown for S Pass holders, who are mid-level foreign skilled staff earning at least $2,500 a month.
India wants to see free movement of professionals to Singapore
In any case, 5 years after CECA was signed, India was still harping over the chapter on movement of natural persons inside CECA.
In 2010, at the time when India and Singapore were reviewing CECA, India told Singapore that allowing immediate free movement of skilled people and substantially higher investment in India’s capital markets are essential for the survival of CECA with Singapore. This was reported by Indian media Financial Express on 26 May 2010.
India was unhappy over the pace of the opening up of services and capital investment, despite five years of operation of the agreement.
At the time, Financial Express quoted a commerce ministry official saying there would be many Indian doctors, architects, engineers and nurses wanting to go to Singapore to work.
“The CECA between India and Singapore was signed in August 2005. According to the agreement in services, the two countries agreed to allow free movement of IT professionals, chartered accountants, architects, engineers and doctors,” Financial Express reported.
And subsequently in 2013, Indian media Business Standard reported that changes to the Employment Pass Framework law by Singapore irked India as the new law does not give India a preferential treatment incorporated in the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CECA) between the two countries, operational since 2005.
“This stance by the Singapore Government is expected to affect Indians working as middle-level managers, executives and technicians.” Business Standard reported.
“Speculations are rife that India might take up the issue with World Trade Organization’s (WTO) dispute settlement body. However, according to Singapore such a decision was imperative in the interest of the natives as the share of the foreign workforce is rising very rapidly.”
Business Standard reported that Indian officials involved in the negotiations said that this is a violation of the services trade agreement under CECA. This will also adversely affect Indians who are working there as it might lead to job losses, especially for the middle level workers.
According to the media outlet, India submitted a request to Singapore for addressing the matter but has not received a formal communication yet.
As of the time of report, there were about 200,000 non-resident Indians in Singapore working in ITES, financial services and scientific research sectors among others, according to one estimate.
Singapore recognises nursing degrees from India
In 2018, the review was finally concluded with new additions to CECA. Even though the new CECA enhancement included expanding tariff concessions for an additional 30 products, it also quietly recognises nursing degrees from 7 Indian education institutes by Singapore.
Singapore’s MTI only briefly mentioned that both countries have “agreed to a Mutual Recognition Agreement on Nursing to facilitate better understand of the Parties’ standards in regulating the training and practice of nursing” in the annex section of its press release.
However, the Indian government was more specific. It said in its press release that Singapore has started recognising nursing degrees from 7 of its education institutions.
The Business Standard of India also reported that it will be “easier for domestic nurses to explore employment opportunities in Singapore now, as India has signed mutual recognition agreement (MRA) with the south east Asian nation in this sector”.
And the Hindu said that India has formalized a MRA in nursing with Singapore which would allow “nurses trained in seven nursing institutions across India to gain employment in the South-East Asian country (Singapore)”.
Currently, Singapore has already started negotiating with India again in further enhancements to CECA in a new review.
Share this:
MRS J TAN SELLING HER CB ON DESKER RD...GOOD JOB...THKS CECA
FOR THE POKES N YOUNG JOHNS JOANESES
FOR THE POKES N YOUNG JOHNS JOANESES
to show that our government needs to be less naive with it's dealings on the international stage and what counter measures will be taken to prevent such future abuse.
and more importantly to dispell the myth of PAP "excellence" when all they have been in recent times is "mediocre" at best.
Won't the MOM know how many corporate transfers are here as they have to issue such passes? N y r such transfers not under the fair consideration frame work? So tat means a company can have 100% transferees? N also the dependents can be employed? How many dependents are working in singkieland?
4,200 intra-corporate transferees in S'pore last year, number remains consistently small: Tan See Leng
Manpower Minister Tan See Leng presenting a statement on free trade agreements and foreign workers.PHOTO: SCREENGRAB FROM GOV.SG
SINGAPORE - There were 4,200 intra-corporate transferees working in Singapore last year, a number that has remained consistently small, said Manpower Minister Tan See Leng in Parliament on Tuesday (July 6).
About 500 of these foreign employees brought in from the overseas offices of multinational corporations (MNCs) are from India.
This is out of 177,000 Employment Pass (EP) holders in Singapore, he added.
Dr Tan was presenting a ministerial statement on free trade agreements (FTAs) and foreign workers in Parliament, touching on issues such as intra-corporate transferees that have been a point of contention.
Intra-corporate transferees are overseas employees at an MNC who have worked for at least a year in the company, before being posted to a branch or subsidiary in Singapore.
Companies that want to fill a role with an intra-corporate transferee are exempted from the Fair Consideration Framework requirement that requires firms to advertise jobs on MyCareersFuture.sg, before submitting EP and S Pass applications.
But the transferee still has to meet the prevailing work pass criteria before they are allowed to work in Singapore.
Dr Tan said: "None of our FTAs, including the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (Ceca), gives intra-corporate transferees unfettered access to our labour market."
He added that such employees are subject to additional checks on their seniority, employment history and work experience. They are also subject to more conditions on their eligibility to bring in dependants, and apply for permanent residency or future employment in Singapore.
"If they have brought in dependants, the dependants do not have automatic rights to work here. They can only do so if they qualify for a work pass on their own merits," he said.
Intra-corporate transferees are a common feature of FTAs globally to allow for the movement of professionals for short periods to set up offices or for ad hoc projects, for instance.
Dr Tan said: "The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) has made Indian nationals coming in through Ceca a focus of contention. I am afraid the PSP has been barking up the wrong tree.
"The number of intra-corporate transferees coming in under our FTAs, and in particular Ceca, is very small relative to our total number of EPs. I suggest we set aside this red herring and move on to the heart of the matter."
He added that there is no such category as "professional visas", but that all 127 categories of professionals under Ceca currently come in under the regular work pass framework.
He noted how the economy has grown from a gross domestic product of $20 billion at the start of the 1970s to $454 billion today.
Foreign workers account for about a third of Singapore's workforce.
More than 2.3 million locals are employed, and the resident unemployment rate is 4.1 per cent, half of what it was in 1970.
"Singaporeans are pragmatic, and understand that we need to remain open to global talent. However, they also face real challenges," he said.
the number given for Covid Year 1 is meaningless. they should show us the numbers for the past decade.
but they won't, because the numbers must be terribly shameful to show in public.
Regarding MOM...is it becoming the next Tpt ministry? As in a poison chalice? Jos Teo f it up with the Wuhan virus breakout in worker dorms. Now this clown is copping the crap from the shitca debate. N the more he defends ...the more he digs his own grave. N he wat water? Is he familee to the pap members?
11/07/2021
Reading Time: 3 mins read
It was reported in Straits Times today (11 Jul) that private healthcare group IHH Healthcare Singapore is sourcing nurses from places like Australia, Hong Kong and Britain, as it said there is a huge shortage of nurses.
It added that the quota limit placed on S Passes, a mid-tier work pass for those earning at least $2,500 a month, has been its biggest hurdle in filling its nursing ranks.
IHH Healthcare Singapore operates hospitals like the Mount Elizabeth Hospital, Gleneagles Hospital and Parkway East Hospital.
By the end of last year (2020), there were more than 42,000 nurses registered with the Singapore Nursing Board, an increase from 36,000 in 2013. Foreign nurses make up about one-third of the overall nursing workforce in Singapore, with Philippine nurses forming the biggest pool.
At IHH Healthcare Singapore, however, half of its nursing workforce here in Singapore are said to be foreign nurses. But its director of nursing Josephine Ong assured, “We are always in need of local nurses and would be keen to consider any suitable candidate.”
It’s not known why IHH Healthcare Singapore chose to aggressively recruit half of its nursing workforce with foreign nurses when the proportion of foreign nurses in Singapore is only one-third of the overall nursing workforce.
He was IHH’s chief for 6 years from Jan 2014 to Dec 2019.
Tan left IHH at the end of 2019 after his contract ended as he “has elected to retire upon the completion of his contract period”. But retirement was not to be. Tan joined the People’s Action Party (PAP) and ran for election several months later in Jul 2020, contesting in Marine Parade GRC.
Still, it’s not known why under Tan’s leadership at IHH, he did not try to recruit more local nurses in Singapore so as to help develop a better “Singaporean core” in the health care industry.
He said, “Fundamentally, the population issue is about maintaining a strong Singaporean core.”
“A strong Singapore core is about the spirit of Singapore – who we are, what ideals we believe in and what ties bind us together as one people. We must therefore also give full weight to the intangible human considerations,” PM Lee added.
And 6 months later in Jun 2013, then Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam who was the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s Chairman, also mentioned that it’s important to develop a “Singaporean core” in the finance sector.
He told the media that the local core in banking is “not just about numbers”.
“It’s about proactive career development, and making sure that Singaporeans are represented in the areas of the banks which are going to see growth opportunities,” he said. “It’s making sure there is a good spread of opportunities for Singaporeans within the different banking functions.”
It’s not known why Tan did not heed the government’s call at the time when he was heading IHH to help develop a “Singaporean core” in IHH’s nursing workforce in Singapore.
Manpower Minister Tan didn't help develop "SG core" in IHH's nursing force when he was CEO - The Online Citizen Asia
Manpower Minister Tan didn’t help develop “SG core” in IHH’s nursing force when he was CEO
by Correspondent11/07/2021
Reading Time: 3 mins read
It was reported in Straits Times today (11 Jul) that private healthcare group IHH Healthcare Singapore is sourcing nurses from places like Australia, Hong Kong and Britain, as it said there is a huge shortage of nurses.
It added that the quota limit placed on S Passes, a mid-tier work pass for those earning at least $2,500 a month, has been its biggest hurdle in filling its nursing ranks.
IHH Healthcare Singapore operates hospitals like the Mount Elizabeth Hospital, Gleneagles Hospital and Parkway East Hospital.
By the end of last year (2020), there were more than 42,000 nurses registered with the Singapore Nursing Board, an increase from 36,000 in 2013. Foreign nurses make up about one-third of the overall nursing workforce in Singapore, with Philippine nurses forming the biggest pool.
At IHH Healthcare Singapore, however, half of its nursing workforce here in Singapore are said to be foreign nurses. But its director of nursing Josephine Ong assured, “We are always in need of local nurses and would be keen to consider any suitable candidate.”
It’s not known why IHH Healthcare Singapore chose to aggressively recruit half of its nursing workforce with foreign nurses when the proportion of foreign nurses in Singapore is only one-third of the overall nursing workforce.
Manpower Minister Tan See Leng was formerly MD and CEO of IHH Healthcare
It turns out that the present Manpower Minister Tan See Leng was the former managing director and chief executive officer of IHH Healthcare, which operates those hospitals in Singapore as well as other hospitals in the region.He was IHH’s chief for 6 years from Jan 2014 to Dec 2019.
Tan left IHH at the end of 2019 after his contract ended as he “has elected to retire upon the completion of his contract period”. But retirement was not to be. Tan joined the People’s Action Party (PAP) and ran for election several months later in Jul 2020, contesting in Marine Parade GRC.
Still, it’s not known why under Tan’s leadership at IHH, he did not try to recruit more local nurses in Singapore so as to help develop a better “Singaporean core” in the health care industry.
PM Lee: We want to maintain a strong Singaporean core
In fact, in his New Year’s message back in 2013 before Tan was appointed to head IHH, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has been advocating the development of a “Singaporean core”.He said, “Fundamentally, the population issue is about maintaining a strong Singaporean core.”
“A strong Singapore core is about the spirit of Singapore – who we are, what ideals we believe in and what ties bind us together as one people. We must therefore also give full weight to the intangible human considerations,” PM Lee added.
And 6 months later in Jun 2013, then Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam who was the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s Chairman, also mentioned that it’s important to develop a “Singaporean core” in the finance sector.
He told the media that the local core in banking is “not just about numbers”.
“It’s about proactive career development, and making sure that Singaporeans are represented in the areas of the banks which are going to see growth opportunities,” he said. “It’s making sure there is a good spread of opportunities for Singaporeans within the different banking functions.”
It’s not known why Tan did not heed the government’s call at the time when he was heading IHH to help develop a “Singaporean core” in IHH’s nursing workforce in Singapore.
Share this:
Everything you need to know about Parliament's debate on CECA in 90 seconds
Much of the debate centred on allegations made by the PSP about the agreement.Matthias Ang |
July 10, 2021, 11:29 AM
You might have heard that the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement was recently put up for debate in Parliament on July 6.
Also known as CECA, the term has since become a shorthand on the forums and social media, referring to Indian nationals, sometimes in a derogatory manner, particularly those who work in Singapore.
The fiery debate saw, among other things, Minister for Health Ong Ye Kung calling out the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) for repeatedly making false allegations about the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in question. So if you haven't been catching up with Parliament proceedings, we're here to give you the low-down on what went on — brace yourself.
Why was CECA debated in Parliament?
In May this year, Law minister K Shanmugam condemned "parties" who deliberately stoked fears, and encouraged racism and xenophobia over concerns of foreigners taking over the jobs of Singaporeans.He highlighted the spread of sentiments regarding CECA, and singled out Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Leong Mun Wai for a debate over the merits of the free trade agreement.
For context, Leong's party, the Progress Singapore Party, highlighted CECA in its 2020 General Election (GE2020) manifesto, as an example of a free trade agreement that it would review.
Leong himself had also posed a parliamentary question in February, asking the Minister of Trade and Industry if there were plans to "negotiate for better terms" under CECA.
The NCMP stressed that he and the PSP were not xenophobic. Instead, they wanted to draw attention to the economic impact of the free trade agreement.
What was CECA's economic impact, according to Leong?
A "heavy indirect tax burden" which he claimed resulted in "widespread social inequalities" as well as an imbalance in the number of foreign PMETs and Permanent Residents.
And that leads us to the debate in July 6
In his ministerial statement, Ong — who used to be a trade negotiator — focused in particular on what he called PSP's repeated allegations that CECA gives Indian professionals a "free hand" to work in Singapore, as well as Leong's claims that Singaporean professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) were most affected by FTAs and CECA.In a subsequent exchange with PSP NCMP Hazel Poa, Ong cited several instances where key PSP members, including then-Secretary-General Tan Cheng Bock alleged that CECA allows the free movement of Indian professionals into Singapore.
Ong Ye Kung: CECA used as political scapegoats
Ong straight up called these statements "falsehoods" which prompt "unattributable, divisive messages" to run rampant online and in message chats, making people — especially those who are facing challenges at the workplace — to feel upset and angry.He dived into the details of CECA, explaining that:
- Chapter 9 of the CECA (which is available online) states that the government’s ability to regulate immigration and foreign manpower is not affected by the agreement.
- The government also retains full rights to decide who can enter the country to live, work or become PRs or citizens.
- There isn't a clause in CECA which allows Indian PMEs to be treated as Singaporeans
All applicants and intra-corporate transferees have to meet the requirement for Work Passes before they can enter Singapore. Singapore is not obliged to approve all such applications, said Ong.
Specifically about intra-corporate transferees, Ong revealed that the number is very small — only 500 in 2020, which made up only 0.3 per cent of all EP holders.
During the parliamentary session, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat, who was the chief negotiator for CECA, revealed this little titbit:
The movement of natural persons chapter in CECA was one of "the most difficult to conclude", because India was keen on it.
However Heng said he "never let go" because with India's population surpassing a billion, such a concession would allow its people to swamp Singapore's population of about three million easily.
Singapore has obligations under CECA, though
There are obligations, though for the parties involved in CECA and Ong spelled out a couple, specifically regarding the movement of talent:Singapore has to expedite the processing of some applications for temporary entry, and be transparent about it with the applicants so as not to leave them hanging.
CECA also obliges Singapore to accord a certain duration for the validity of work passes, but applicants have to meet the work pass requirements.
It is also not unique, said Ong, as such a commitment may be found in other FTAs and the WTO Agreement signed by 164 countries.
The minister acknowledged that while local PMEs had legitimate concerns over their jobs, both FTAs and CECA have been made into "political scapegoats" by the PSP.
Tan See Leng: Same issue happened in early 2000s with Chinese workers
Moving on from the technical details of CECA, Minister for Manpower Tan See Leng pinpointed the root cause of the issue: Social friction and anxiety caused by the increasing concentration of Employment Pass (EP) holders.Such issues were expected, he said, given the transient nature of such a demographic. Such a situation had occurred in the early 2000s, when the share of foreign workers from China increased significantly, thereby creating friction within Singapore's communities.
A balance needs to be struck between ensuring that businesses here have enough manpower, and creating opportunities for Singaporean workers, said the minister.
Increase in Indian EP holders: Not enough Singaporeans to go around
As for the increase in Indian EP holders in Singapore, Tan said that this is not the result of more favourable treatment due to CECA but a reflection of the global trend in the demand and supply of tech talent.Within Singapore, part of this trend has been driven by the need for every sector to be digitally enabled, he highlighted.
There are also not enough Singaporeans to fill vacant positions, with 6,000 jobs in the info-comm sector alone remaining unfilled, and around 22,000 PME jobs in general that stood empty.
As such, while companies are keen to take on Singaporeans, given that the local workforce is more productive, they can also decide on which overseas countries they want to bring in their manpower from based on their needs and the availability of the required talent.
More local PME jobs were created compared to those for EPs
Tan also pointed out that from 2005 to 2020, there were more local PME jobs that were created for Singaporeans, compared to that for EP holders.During this period, the total number of EPs increased by around 112,000 while the number of local PMEs increased by more than 380,000.
Within the finance sector, the number of EPs increased by around 20,000, while the number of jobs created for local PMEs was even greater at around 85,000.
As for the info-comm sector, the number of EPs increased by around 25,000 while the number of jobs created for local PMEs at 35,000.
Tan also revealed that by absolute numbers, three-quarters of PME workers are locals, while one-quarter is filled by foreign work pass holders.
Leong: Concedes that jobs not used as bargaining chips, but still unsure if CECA is beneficial to S'pore
Ong then pressed the PSP members if they agreed that:- FTAs, including CECA, are fundamental to Singapore's economic survival.
- CECA does not allow a free flow of Indian PMEs into Singapore.
Instead, Leong said that he was still unsure if the CECA is beneficial to Singapore and needed time to study the information.
Ong then concluded that the allegations against CECA were not being withdrawn and said that Leong's position was "most regrettable".
WP's Pritam Singh: Could misunderstanding on CECA be addressed earlier if information was released earlier?
Separately, the Leader of the Opposition, Pritam Singh of the Workers' Party, spoke on the benefits of releasing information early to help quell falsehoods over sensitive issues:He added that he hoped the government understood that with more information, "we can hold the line better in terms of some of these discussions, moving into a realm of xenophobia and so forth."
Ong explained that this is not always possible for certain pieces of data.
However, he acknowledged that it could have been better if some information had come out earlier, so they could move on, and issues that concern racism or xenophobia in particular could be addressed earlier.
So what's next?
PSP said that it requires more data before it files a motion for a debate, but as Ong said in Parliament, the government has "tried [their] best" to provide the data requested.
The ball is now apparently in PSP's court, for its NCMPs to table a Motion of Debate.
Here's what you need to know about CECA:
Top collage background image by Suhaimi Abdullah/Getty Images, screenshots via MCI's YouTube and CNA
If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Telegram to get the latest updates.
Ministerial Statements proved nothing more than smoke-screens to sell narrative that FTAs are important for S'pore’s survival - The Online Citizen Asia
by Kok Ming Cheang
Two Ministerial Statements that proved nothing more than a smoke-screen to sell a standard narrative that Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) are important for Singapore’s survival.
That was how I viewed the Parliamentary debate last Tuesday (6 Jul) and reported by the Straits Times a day later (in confusing language.)
Two ministers, Mr Ong Ye Kung — former Education and Transport Minister who is now the Health Minister and Dr Tan See Leng, the new Manpower Minister teamed up, with well-prepared speeches to sell a narrative we already know.
Learn more
However, the outcome of their speeches paled miserably compared to the effort put in.
The objective of the sudden Ministerial Statements (usually reserve for state matters of the highest order or urgency) over the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) soon became clear: to demolish Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Leong Mun Wai and his team mate, Ms Hazel Poa who is also a NCMP and discredit Progress Singapore Party (PSP) in Parliament.
The two ministers didn’t succeed because their objectives were wrong. They were not there to address the concerns of Singaporean PMETs (professionals, managers, executives and technicians) in losing their jobs and livelihoods and how to help them recover.
What wrong did these two political seedlings do to warrant such heavy attack? Politics is a contest of ideas — are politicians from the People’s Action Party (PAP) so lacking in confidence that whoever crosses their path must be demolished before their opponent becomes an old oak tree in Parliament?
This is not the politics Singaporeans want.
While trying to educate Singaporeans on the value and benefits of FTAs to Singapore, the real target was Mr Leong Mun Wai and team-mate Ms Hazel Poa.
The ministers glorified FTAs: “FTAs had enabled Singapore to ramp up investments from overseas and create thousands of jobs in Singapore.” Mr Ong made a serious allegation: “When you attack FTAs, and worse, if your attack succeeds, you are undermining the fundamentals of our existence, all the sectors FTAs support, and the hundreds of thousands of Singaporean jobs created in these sectors.”
Such an allegation makes it look like PSP has committed a national crime? Did anyone from PSP (or other opposition) ever attack FTAs except CECA? Was CECA even discussed in Parliament before it was signed in 2005?
So, what wrong did these two political seedlings do to warrant such heavy firepower?
The PAP politicians claimed that they must debunk falsehoods about CECA, which were apparently attributed to PSP.
Minister Ong “was referring to allegations by the PSP , going back to before last year’s general election,
about how CECA allows professionals from India ‘a free hand’ to come and work in Singapore.”
“Mr Ong said that the PSP has claimed for months that FTAs and CECA have led to the unfettered inflow of Indian professionals, which then displaces Singaporeans from their jobs and brings about all kinds of social ills.” “It has stirred up a lot of emotions,” he said.
If true, why didn’t the government respond immediately when the above claims were made? The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) was passed on 8 May 2019.
I am sure there ought to have been safeguards in the CECA which protect Singapore’s interests like:
“None of our FTAs including the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) gives intra-corporate transferees unfettered access to our labour market”;
“CECA does not allow unconditional entry of Indian PMEs; and
“CECA does not affect S’pore’s ability to regulate immigration.”
But if the regulations and process of applications are stringent enough, how did Singapore end up with 177,000 Employment Pass (EP) holders in 2020 compared with 65,000 in 2005?
40% of the increase in EPs issued to foreign professionals were in the finance and infocomm sectors. And 25% EP holders last year were from India compared with 14% in 2005.
For those Singaporean PMET who have lost their jobs and livelihoods to foreign PMETs, all the regulations that the government has to safeguard the local labour market do not matter. (The government has dropped “T” from this category of employees and uses PMEs instead.)
Seeing is believing, be it on the morning and evening trains, in Changi Business Park or MBFC, there are hoards of foreigners, mostly from one similar nationality, visibly present. How can the ministers blamed PSP for stirring up emotions on issues concerning jobs and livelihoods?
To be fair, Mr Ong said “the government has been taking steps to address their concerns.” The salary levels for work pass applicants were revised, enforcement work to ensure fair employment practices was stepped up and some employers were taken to task for non-compliance.
Unfortunately, none of these actions seems convincing enough for the Singapore PMETs because they are looked upon as putting up a show to soothe the ground.
Mr Ong believes he can sell a standard narrative with his simplistic argument.
Even when EP holders increased from 2005 to 177,000 in 2020, Singapore PMETs should not have reason to complain because the number of local professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) grew by more than 380,000 in the period, so he seemingly implied.
Furthermore, what was not clarified is that the local PMEs comprised both Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs). Among the Singaporean PMEs, we should expect a certain number to be new citizens too. In reality, the local-born PMETs are pressured by competition all round.
He further said “local employment has been stable. The unemployment rate for local PMEs in June last year was 2.9 per cent …even though this was immediately after the circuit breaker period.”
However, local employment is probably only stable for now due to the creation of thousands of short-term jobs like traineeships and internships, the new “ambassadors” to supervise the Covid19 government measures and new head counts created with financial help from government. There must also be hundreds of Singaporeans, young and old, who have taken up gig jobs like Grab drivers, PH drivers, food delivery riders who are considered as employed.
Mr Ong went further to say that “foreign PMEs help cushion the impact on the local workforce when times are bad.”
To prove his point, he said “from April last year to April this year, the number of EP holders dropped by about 21,600, while the figure for S-Pass holders fell by about 26,800..” This is a small number compared to 177,000 EP holders last year.
It is, however, important to note that “quotas or levies are not imposed on EPs because of competition for global talent.
Dr Tan provided more figures in his Ministerial Statement but none of these helped to address the Singaporeans’ concern for their loss of jobs and livelihoods.
He confirmed the massive growth of EPs in Singapore: “From 2005 to last year, the total number of EPs increased by about 112,000 while the number of local PMEs grew by more than 380,000.” The proportion of EPs from India rose to about 35% last year, from 14% in 2005.
From 2005 to last year, the finance and infocomm sectors together accounted for 40% of the increase in Employment Passes issued to foreign professionals which amounted to 44,800.
It is not surprising that these two sectors attracted a great number of Indian professionals to Singapore.
In infocomm sector alone, it attracted an increase of 25,000 EPs while the number of jobs created for local PMEs was about 35,000. So Singapore PMETs could lose jobs at both ends of the labour market – loss to EPs and PRs ( classified under Local PMES.) And in the finance sector, the number of EPs increased by 20,000 while the number of jobs created in the Local PMES amounted to 85,000.
Strictly speaking, Singaporean PMETs should be having a hay day today in the infocomm, professional services and finance sectors. No wonder, CECA, amongst all the 26 FTAs that Singapore have signed, is the most contentious. The contention is not over trade and investments but jobs.
In my view, it was a great oversight by Parliament if CECA was never fully discussed before it was brought it to the government for signature.
All the statistics provided in the two ministerial statements pointed to a big pool of professional jobs available in Singapore due to the success of FTAs in attracting foreign investments and creating many good jobs here.
To India, with a huge population and high unemployment rate, the Singapore labour market is a great prize to be won in the CECA negotiations. For Singapore, what was so wrong to offer our labour market as a bargaining chip to exchange for rights to enter the huge Indian domestic market for trade and investments?
Why was Deputy Prime Minister Heng so offended when Mr Leong made his point?
Mr Heng himself “recalled that his Indian counterparts were very keen on the chapter (movement of people) in question.” If Singapore did not offer India Chapter 9 on the movement of natural persons, would India just walk away from the negotiating table, like they did with the RCEP at the 11th hour when PM Modi knew he could not get the ‘movement of natural clause’ from the 15 Asia-Pacific economies to trade off the opening of the Indian economy to foreign trade and businesses?
Despite the massive resources put in by two ministers, both failed to put up a convincing argument that CECA (not other FTAs) is net beneficial to Singapore.
PAP politicians’ standard play-book didn’t work this time — talking about all the good work they put in to secure FTAs instead of addressing the widespread unhappiness of Singaporean PMETs losing their jobs and livelihoods to foreign professionals who purportedly have higher skills and talents than our well-educated workforce. There are also doubts that they are the foreign talents that can bring Singapore forward in the knowledge and high-tech economy.
After almost a full day of debate, the most critical question is still not answered by both ministers: How many Singaporean PMETs have been displaced by foreign employees from 2005 till today?
Mr Leong stood up to the pressure: “And we don’t agree that CECA is net beneficial to Singapore at this stage.”
For Mr Ong Ye Kung, “It is regrettable because generations of FTA negotiators worked very hard to make sure our interests are protected…”
This is the same for Mr Leong and team-mate Ms Poa — in protecting Singaporean PMETs’ interest in a global economy.
Finally, when the curtain was drawn, we saw both NCMPs standing tall in Parliament.
Share this:
by Kok Ming Cheang
Two Ministerial Statements that proved nothing more than a smoke-screen to sell a standard narrative that Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) are important for Singapore’s survival.
That was how I viewed the Parliamentary debate last Tuesday (6 Jul) and reported by the Straits Times a day later (in confusing language.)
Two ministers, Mr Ong Ye Kung — former Education and Transport Minister who is now the Health Minister and Dr Tan See Leng, the new Manpower Minister teamed up, with well-prepared speeches to sell a narrative we already know.
Learn more
However, the outcome of their speeches paled miserably compared to the effort put in.
The objective of the sudden Ministerial Statements (usually reserve for state matters of the highest order or urgency) over the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) soon became clear: to demolish Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Leong Mun Wai and his team mate, Ms Hazel Poa who is also a NCMP and discredit Progress Singapore Party (PSP) in Parliament.
The two ministers didn’t succeed because their objectives were wrong. They were not there to address the concerns of Singaporean PMETs (professionals, managers, executives and technicians) in losing their jobs and livelihoods and how to help them recover.
What wrong did these two political seedlings do to warrant such heavy attack? Politics is a contest of ideas — are politicians from the People’s Action Party (PAP) so lacking in confidence that whoever crosses their path must be demolished before their opponent becomes an old oak tree in Parliament?
This is not the politics Singaporeans want.
While trying to educate Singaporeans on the value and benefits of FTAs to Singapore, the real target was Mr Leong Mun Wai and team-mate Ms Hazel Poa.
The ministers glorified FTAs: “FTAs had enabled Singapore to ramp up investments from overseas and create thousands of jobs in Singapore.” Mr Ong made a serious allegation: “When you attack FTAs, and worse, if your attack succeeds, you are undermining the fundamentals of our existence, all the sectors FTAs support, and the hundreds of thousands of Singaporean jobs created in these sectors.”
Such an allegation makes it look like PSP has committed a national crime? Did anyone from PSP (or other opposition) ever attack FTAs except CECA? Was CECA even discussed in Parliament before it was signed in 2005?
So, what wrong did these two political seedlings do to warrant such heavy firepower?
The PAP politicians claimed that they must debunk falsehoods about CECA, which were apparently attributed to PSP.
Minister Ong “was referring to allegations by the PSP , going back to before last year’s general election,
about how CECA allows professionals from India ‘a free hand’ to come and work in Singapore.”
“Mr Ong said that the PSP has claimed for months that FTAs and CECA have led to the unfettered inflow of Indian professionals, which then displaces Singaporeans from their jobs and brings about all kinds of social ills.” “It has stirred up a lot of emotions,” he said.
If true, why didn’t the government respond immediately when the above claims were made? The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) was passed on 8 May 2019.
I am sure there ought to have been safeguards in the CECA which protect Singapore’s interests like:
“None of our FTAs including the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) gives intra-corporate transferees unfettered access to our labour market”;
“CECA does not allow unconditional entry of Indian PMEs; and
“CECA does not affect S’pore’s ability to regulate immigration.”
But if the regulations and process of applications are stringent enough, how did Singapore end up with 177,000 Employment Pass (EP) holders in 2020 compared with 65,000 in 2005?
40% of the increase in EPs issued to foreign professionals were in the finance and infocomm sectors. And 25% EP holders last year were from India compared with 14% in 2005.
For those Singaporean PMET who have lost their jobs and livelihoods to foreign PMETs, all the regulations that the government has to safeguard the local labour market do not matter. (The government has dropped “T” from this category of employees and uses PMEs instead.)
Seeing is believing, be it on the morning and evening trains, in Changi Business Park or MBFC, there are hoards of foreigners, mostly from one similar nationality, visibly present. How can the ministers blamed PSP for stirring up emotions on issues concerning jobs and livelihoods?
To be fair, Mr Ong said “the government has been taking steps to address their concerns.” The salary levels for work pass applicants were revised, enforcement work to ensure fair employment practices was stepped up and some employers were taken to task for non-compliance.
Unfortunately, none of these actions seems convincing enough for the Singapore PMETs because they are looked upon as putting up a show to soothe the ground.
Mr Ong believes he can sell a standard narrative with his simplistic argument.
Even when EP holders increased from 2005 to 177,000 in 2020, Singapore PMETs should not have reason to complain because the number of local professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) grew by more than 380,000 in the period, so he seemingly implied.
Furthermore, what was not clarified is that the local PMEs comprised both Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs). Among the Singaporean PMEs, we should expect a certain number to be new citizens too. In reality, the local-born PMETs are pressured by competition all round.
He further said “local employment has been stable. The unemployment rate for local PMEs in June last year was 2.9 per cent …even though this was immediately after the circuit breaker period.”
However, local employment is probably only stable for now due to the creation of thousands of short-term jobs like traineeships and internships, the new “ambassadors” to supervise the Covid19 government measures and new head counts created with financial help from government. There must also be hundreds of Singaporeans, young and old, who have taken up gig jobs like Grab drivers, PH drivers, food delivery riders who are considered as employed.
Mr Ong went further to say that “foreign PMEs help cushion the impact on the local workforce when times are bad.”
To prove his point, he said “from April last year to April this year, the number of EP holders dropped by about 21,600, while the figure for S-Pass holders fell by about 26,800..” This is a small number compared to 177,000 EP holders last year.
It is, however, important to note that “quotas or levies are not imposed on EPs because of competition for global talent.
Dr Tan provided more figures in his Ministerial Statement but none of these helped to address the Singaporeans’ concern for their loss of jobs and livelihoods.
He confirmed the massive growth of EPs in Singapore: “From 2005 to last year, the total number of EPs increased by about 112,000 while the number of local PMEs grew by more than 380,000.” The proportion of EPs from India rose to about 35% last year, from 14% in 2005.
From 2005 to last year, the finance and infocomm sectors together accounted for 40% of the increase in Employment Passes issued to foreign professionals which amounted to 44,800.
It is not surprising that these two sectors attracted a great number of Indian professionals to Singapore.
In infocomm sector alone, it attracted an increase of 25,000 EPs while the number of jobs created for local PMEs was about 35,000. So Singapore PMETs could lose jobs at both ends of the labour market – loss to EPs and PRs ( classified under Local PMES.) And in the finance sector, the number of EPs increased by 20,000 while the number of jobs created in the Local PMES amounted to 85,000.
Strictly speaking, Singaporean PMETs should be having a hay day today in the infocomm, professional services and finance sectors. No wonder, CECA, amongst all the 26 FTAs that Singapore have signed, is the most contentious. The contention is not over trade and investments but jobs.
In my view, it was a great oversight by Parliament if CECA was never fully discussed before it was brought it to the government for signature.
All the statistics provided in the two ministerial statements pointed to a big pool of professional jobs available in Singapore due to the success of FTAs in attracting foreign investments and creating many good jobs here.
To India, with a huge population and high unemployment rate, the Singapore labour market is a great prize to be won in the CECA negotiations. For Singapore, what was so wrong to offer our labour market as a bargaining chip to exchange for rights to enter the huge Indian domestic market for trade and investments?
Why was Deputy Prime Minister Heng so offended when Mr Leong made his point?
Mr Heng himself “recalled that his Indian counterparts were very keen on the chapter (movement of people) in question.” If Singapore did not offer India Chapter 9 on the movement of natural persons, would India just walk away from the negotiating table, like they did with the RCEP at the 11th hour when PM Modi knew he could not get the ‘movement of natural clause’ from the 15 Asia-Pacific economies to trade off the opening of the Indian economy to foreign trade and businesses?
Despite the massive resources put in by two ministers, both failed to put up a convincing argument that CECA (not other FTAs) is net beneficial to Singapore.
PAP politicians’ standard play-book didn’t work this time — talking about all the good work they put in to secure FTAs instead of addressing the widespread unhappiness of Singaporean PMETs losing their jobs and livelihoods to foreign professionals who purportedly have higher skills and talents than our well-educated workforce. There are also doubts that they are the foreign talents that can bring Singapore forward in the knowledge and high-tech economy.
After almost a full day of debate, the most critical question is still not answered by both ministers: How many Singaporean PMETs have been displaced by foreign employees from 2005 till today?
Mr Leong stood up to the pressure: “And we don’t agree that CECA is net beneficial to Singapore at this stage.”
For Mr Ong Ye Kung, “It is regrettable because generations of FTA negotiators worked very hard to make sure our interests are protected…”
This is the same for Mr Leong and team-mate Ms Poa — in protecting Singaporean PMETs’ interest in a global economy.
Finally, when the curtain was drawn, we saw both NCMPs standing tall in Parliament.
Share this:
Wooh... 177, 000 overseas tenant occupants for GLC residential property investors.... low vacancy rate for properties in Singapore... smooth hands PAP... boh Chenghu....Won't the MOM know how many corporate transfers are here as they have to issue such passes? N y r such transfers not under the fair consideration frame work? So tat means a company can have 100% transferees? N also the dependents can be employed? How many dependents are working in singkieland?
4,200 intra-corporate transferees in S'pore last year, number remains consistently small: Tan See Leng
Manpower Minister Tan See Leng presenting a statement on free trade agreements and foreign workers.PHOTO: SCREENGRAB FROM GOV.SG
SINGAPORE - There were 4,200 intra-corporate transferees working in Singapore last year, a number that has remained consistently small, said Manpower Minister Tan See Leng in Parliament on Tuesday (July 6).
About 500 of these foreign employees brought in from the overseas offices of multinational corporations (MNCs) are from India.
This is out of 177,000 Employment Pass (EP) holders in Singapore, he added.
Dr Tan was presenting a ministerial statement on free trade agreements (FTAs) and foreign workers in Parliament, touching on issues such as intra-corporate transferees that have been a point of contention.
Intra-corporate transferees are overseas employees at an MNC who have worked for at least a year in the company, before being posted to a branch or subsidiary in Singapore.
Companies that want to fill a role with an intra-corporate transferee are exempted from the Fair Consideration Framework requirement that requires firms to advertise jobs on MyCareersFuture.sg, before submitting EP and S Pass applications.
But the transferee still has to meet the prevailing work pass criteria before they are allowed to work in Singapore.
Dr Tan said: "None of our FTAs, including the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (Ceca), gives intra-corporate transferees unfettered access to our labour market."
He added that such employees are subject to additional checks on their seniority, employment history and work experience. They are also subject to more conditions on their eligibility to bring in dependants, and apply for permanent residency or future employment in Singapore.
"If they have brought in dependants, the dependants do not have automatic rights to work here. They can only do so if they qualify for a work pass on their own merits," he said.
Intra-corporate transferees are a common feature of FTAs globally to allow for the movement of professionals for short periods to set up offices or for ad hoc projects, for instance.
Dr Tan said: "The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) has made Indian nationals coming in through Ceca a focus of contention. I am afraid the PSP has been barking up the wrong tree.
"The number of intra-corporate transferees coming in under our FTAs, and in particular Ceca, is very small relative to our total number of EPs. I suggest we set aside this red herring and move on to the heart of the matter."
He added that there is no such category as "professional visas", but that all 127 categories of professionals under Ceca currently come in under the regular work pass framework.
He noted how the economy has grown from a gross domestic product of $20 billion at the start of the 1970s to $454 billion today.
Foreign workers account for about a third of Singapore's workforce.
More than 2.3 million locals are employed, and the resident unemployment rate is 4.1 per cent, half of what it was in 1970.
"Singaporeans are pragmatic, and understand that we need to remain open to global talent. However, they also face real challenges," he said.
More condo security guards jobs for PMET locals... FTs create jobs? Transfer is creating jobs for Singapore.... well done...
Govt clarifies CECA doesn’t allow Indian nationals free entry to S’pore – but netizens claim they’ve seen massive hiring of Indian nationals in workplace - The Online Citizen Asia
Despite two ministerial statements have been delivered to clarify that the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) does not allow Indian nationals free entry to Singapore, some netizens remain sceptical as they had personally experienced an influx of Indian nationals being hired in their previous workplaces.
Earlier on 6 July, Health Minister Ong Ye Kung said in Parliament that the Free Trade Agreements (FTA) and CECA have not curtailed the power of immigration authorities to regulate the entry of foreign professionals, managers, executives, and technicians (PMETs) into Singapore under such agreements.
Mr Ong, who delivered his ministerial statement on the issues of FTAs and CECA in the context of his background as a former trade negotiator in the civil service, said that the Government “retains full rights” to determine who can enter, live, work, and obtain permanent resident status in Singapore.
He also dismissed Progress Singapore Party’s (PSP) claim that the 127 categories of professionals listed in CECA allow Indian nationals to flock to Singapore to work freely, saying that all foreign PMETs have to meet all of the relevant criteria set by the Government to enter for employment purposes.
Manpower Minister Tan See Leng, on the other hand, revealed that there were 4,200 intra-corporate transferees (ICTs) working in Singapore last year, of which 500 were brought in from India.
“None of our FTAs, including the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (Ceca), gives intra-corporate transferees unfettered access to our labour market,” said the Minister.
The ministerial statements, however, have sparked anger among Singaporeans, as some netizens claimed that they have firsthand experience of how the CECA has caused an influx of Indian nationals in their previous workplaces.
One netizen wrote to Facebook page The Alternative View on 6 July, saying that he had worked in the financial industry for 15 years and witnessed himself how Indian ‘professionals’ began entering the industry from around 2007.
In just a few years, the numbers grew and became a “flood”, said the netizen.
“During my time, you could see certain departments filled with just Indian nationals. In 1 such department, there were 23 staff. Of the 23 staff, 22 were from India and the remaining 1 was a Chinese but based in HK.
“The investment and retail side were also dominated by Indian nationals. Not surprising because the heads of both divisions were also from India. And on top of them, there was an overall Chief Executive of Asia who was also from India.
“This certainly validates the anecdotal observation that these people hire their own and what better place than S’pore to do this, with the CECA allowing them to transfer their compatriots in under the Intra-Corporate Transfer route,” he explained.
As such, the netizen stressed that it is not a “joke” when people refer Marina Bay Financial Centre (MBFC) as Mumbai Financial Centre or Changi Business Park (CBF) as Chennai Business Park.
Over time, the Singaporean was so “dismayed” at this situation that he decided to leave the workplace.
“Nothing much has changed since I left. You just need to go LinkedIn to look through the employees of many foreign banks to see for yourself,” he said.
Meanwhile, one netizen commenting on his post also shared his past experience working in a bank 20 years ago.
He noted that the bank’s director, who was an Indian national, would “block” all communication and benefits purportedly for “non-Indian” employees, and instead give Indian employees promotions and benefits. This only ended when another head of a department intervened.
“How he knew? Because the regional side find suspicious on high resignation then send someone to interview us, then they realised the problem,” said the Facebook user.
Another commenter, who claimed that he had worked with Citibank, Standard Chartered Bank (SCB), and DBS Bank before, said that the bosses in these banks will only “look out for their own folks” and “skip” local candidates.
One netizen, who claimed that she has worked in local and foreign banks for over 20 years, shared that she went to a job interview where the human resource is based in India and the bosses are Indian nationals.
“Another foreign bank whose HR also in India asked for 10 years of my CPF statements then 3 months later, revoked the offer citing my qualifications,” she wrote.
“I was shocked when I hear the minister view… that is utterly bullcrap,” said another netizen who worked in the maritime transport industries for more than 15 years.
He claimed that he went to a job interview and found that most of the employees there were Indian nationals, therefore he asked, “I just wonder is our educations not fit enough to be in there? And were India degree are much better?”
One netizen agreed to the Facebook post, citing his past work experience at one of the banks in Changi Business Park (CBP) where he noticed that most of the staff there were foreigners.
“From Changi city point (controlled by peenoys) to CBP (controlled by the headshakers)… most if not all of the remaining locals are pushed one side to work as either security or cleaners..” he wrote.
Several other netizens have also voiced out their personal experience in a thread on Reddit.
One Reddit user shared his past experience working in a startup that benefitted from the funds given by the Singapore Government. During his time there, the company had more than 20 employees, of which only two staff were Singaporeans.
“There was no way they could have sustain that number, but I am guessing it’s because they tapped into their sister’s company, and used their local numbers,” he wrote.
The user also alleged that the bosses were “rude” and called Singaporeans “lowly and peasants” and even “openly talking badly” about the Singapore Government, which led him to make a report to a Government agency about the company.
“Before I left they started hiring more locals.. eventually the company became successful and they ended up outsourcing to neighbouring countries, talk about wasting gov funding..” he added.
Another Reddit user shared that he worked in a multinational corporation (MNC) where the directors were “almost all foreigners”, even the “middle management” positions were filled by foreigners.
“While I think most are nice and competent people -I don’t really understand why – roles like fp&a manager, finance manager, supply chain mgr, sales mgr, are there really no Singaporeans who can do this job?” he asked.
One netizen claimed that most of the staff in the IT department are Indian nationals, while the “deskside team” is a “mixed bag”.
Meanwhile, People’s Voice Party chief Lim Tean posted on Facebook on Tuesday (13 July) a sharing from a netizen named Jlynn Jlynn, who commented on one of his previous posts, saying how it is “outrageous” that Singaporean worker is being “shortchanged” in his own country.
In his comment, the netizen proclaimed himself a “citizen of Singapore” for more than 25 years, married to a Singaporean woman and now has four children.
Being in the oil and gas industry, he noted that the employment agencies will prioritise candidates of their own natives over Singaporeans when submitting CVs to clients for the inspector, engineer, and administrative positions.
“These are well paying jobs (day rate $250~$550/10hrs) in the 70s,80s,90s,2000s. Today the rates are still similar as such majority ‘related’ or their ‘kampong Folks’ are being selected or recommended by the agencies.
“Check out the projects in Keppel, Sembawang, Tuas Mega yards, Jurong Shipyards & their subsidiaries and sub-contractors to name a few. In the petrochemical industries and aircraft industries are the same. NTUC Health employs Nursing aids from neighboring countries when our nursing students are being left out,” he added.
Share this:
Despite two ministerial statements have been delivered to clarify that the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) does not allow Indian nationals free entry to Singapore, some netizens remain sceptical as they had personally experienced an influx of Indian nationals being hired in their previous workplaces.
Earlier on 6 July, Health Minister Ong Ye Kung said in Parliament that the Free Trade Agreements (FTA) and CECA have not curtailed the power of immigration authorities to regulate the entry of foreign professionals, managers, executives, and technicians (PMETs) into Singapore under such agreements.
Mr Ong, who delivered his ministerial statement on the issues of FTAs and CECA in the context of his background as a former trade negotiator in the civil service, said that the Government “retains full rights” to determine who can enter, live, work, and obtain permanent resident status in Singapore.
He also dismissed Progress Singapore Party’s (PSP) claim that the 127 categories of professionals listed in CECA allow Indian nationals to flock to Singapore to work freely, saying that all foreign PMETs have to meet all of the relevant criteria set by the Government to enter for employment purposes.
Manpower Minister Tan See Leng, on the other hand, revealed that there were 4,200 intra-corporate transferees (ICTs) working in Singapore last year, of which 500 were brought in from India.
“None of our FTAs, including the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (Ceca), gives intra-corporate transferees unfettered access to our labour market,” said the Minister.
The ministerial statements, however, have sparked anger among Singaporeans, as some netizens claimed that they have firsthand experience of how the CECA has caused an influx of Indian nationals in their previous workplaces.
One netizen wrote to Facebook page The Alternative View on 6 July, saying that he had worked in the financial industry for 15 years and witnessed himself how Indian ‘professionals’ began entering the industry from around 2007.
In just a few years, the numbers grew and became a “flood”, said the netizen.
“During my time, you could see certain departments filled with just Indian nationals. In 1 such department, there were 23 staff. Of the 23 staff, 22 were from India and the remaining 1 was a Chinese but based in HK.
“The investment and retail side were also dominated by Indian nationals. Not surprising because the heads of both divisions were also from India. And on top of them, there was an overall Chief Executive of Asia who was also from India.
“This certainly validates the anecdotal observation that these people hire their own and what better place than S’pore to do this, with the CECA allowing them to transfer their compatriots in under the Intra-Corporate Transfer route,” he explained.
As such, the netizen stressed that it is not a “joke” when people refer Marina Bay Financial Centre (MBFC) as Mumbai Financial Centre or Changi Business Park (CBF) as Chennai Business Park.
Over time, the Singaporean was so “dismayed” at this situation that he decided to leave the workplace.
“Nothing much has changed since I left. You just need to go LinkedIn to look through the employees of many foreign banks to see for yourself,” he said.
Meanwhile, one netizen commenting on his post also shared his past experience working in a bank 20 years ago.
He noted that the bank’s director, who was an Indian national, would “block” all communication and benefits purportedly for “non-Indian” employees, and instead give Indian employees promotions and benefits. This only ended when another head of a department intervened.
“How he knew? Because the regional side find suspicious on high resignation then send someone to interview us, then they realised the problem,” said the Facebook user.
Another commenter, who claimed that he had worked with Citibank, Standard Chartered Bank (SCB), and DBS Bank before, said that the bosses in these banks will only “look out for their own folks” and “skip” local candidates.
One netizen, who claimed that she has worked in local and foreign banks for over 20 years, shared that she went to a job interview where the human resource is based in India and the bosses are Indian nationals.
“Another foreign bank whose HR also in India asked for 10 years of my CPF statements then 3 months later, revoked the offer citing my qualifications,” she wrote.
“I was shocked when I hear the minister view… that is utterly bullcrap,” said another netizen who worked in the maritime transport industries for more than 15 years.
He claimed that he went to a job interview and found that most of the employees there were Indian nationals, therefore he asked, “I just wonder is our educations not fit enough to be in there? And were India degree are much better?”
One netizen agreed to the Facebook post, citing his past work experience at one of the banks in Changi Business Park (CBP) where he noticed that most of the staff there were foreigners.
“From Changi city point (controlled by peenoys) to CBP (controlled by the headshakers)… most if not all of the remaining locals are pushed one side to work as either security or cleaners..” he wrote.
Several other netizens have also voiced out their personal experience in a thread on Reddit.
One Reddit user shared his past experience working in a startup that benefitted from the funds given by the Singapore Government. During his time there, the company had more than 20 employees, of which only two staff were Singaporeans.
“There was no way they could have sustain that number, but I am guessing it’s because they tapped into their sister’s company, and used their local numbers,” he wrote.
The user also alleged that the bosses were “rude” and called Singaporeans “lowly and peasants” and even “openly talking badly” about the Singapore Government, which led him to make a report to a Government agency about the company.
“Before I left they started hiring more locals.. eventually the company became successful and they ended up outsourcing to neighbouring countries, talk about wasting gov funding..” he added.
Another Reddit user shared that he worked in a multinational corporation (MNC) where the directors were “almost all foreigners”, even the “middle management” positions were filled by foreigners.
“While I think most are nice and competent people -I don’t really understand why – roles like fp&a manager, finance manager, supply chain mgr, sales mgr, are there really no Singaporeans who can do this job?” he asked.
One netizen claimed that most of the staff in the IT department are Indian nationals, while the “deskside team” is a “mixed bag”.
Meanwhile, People’s Voice Party chief Lim Tean posted on Facebook on Tuesday (13 July) a sharing from a netizen named Jlynn Jlynn, who commented on one of his previous posts, saying how it is “outrageous” that Singaporean worker is being “shortchanged” in his own country.
In his comment, the netizen proclaimed himself a “citizen of Singapore” for more than 25 years, married to a Singaporean woman and now has four children.
Being in the oil and gas industry, he noted that the employment agencies will prioritise candidates of their own natives over Singaporeans when submitting CVs to clients for the inspector, engineer, and administrative positions.
“These are well paying jobs (day rate $250~$550/10hrs) in the 70s,80s,90s,2000s. Today the rates are still similar as such majority ‘related’ or their ‘kampong Folks’ are being selected or recommended by the agencies.
“Check out the projects in Keppel, Sembawang, Tuas Mega yards, Jurong Shipyards & their subsidiaries and sub-contractors to name a few. In the petrochemical industries and aircraft industries are the same. NTUC Health employs Nursing aids from neighboring countries when our nursing students are being left out,” he added.
Share this:
Theindependent
Photo: YT screengrab/ Tean Lim
- Advertisement -
Singapore — Lawyer and opposition leader Lim Tean said that his party, People’s Voice (VSP) supports the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) for “Standing Up For Singaporean Workers!”
PSP has repeatedly brought up concerns regarding CECA, the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, on what may be preferential treatment toward Indian professionals at the expense of Singaporean workers.
A lengthy debate was held in Parliament last Tuesday (Jul 6), when PSP Non-Constituency MP Leong Mun Wai sparred with Health Minister Ong Ye Kung and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng concerning the agreement.
At the end of the debate, while Mr Leong said that he and fellow PSP NCMP Hazel Poa are in favor of Singapore’s Free Trade Agreements, he said that PSP will look further as to “whether CECA has contributed to the influx of some of the PMETs into Singapore in relation to our overall foreign talent policy”.
- Advertisement -
“We don’t agree that CECA is net beneficial to Singapore at this stage,” Mr Leong also said, adding, “We know the importance of the FTAs for Singapore as an open economy and especially as a small city state. However, what we are concerned about is what price we are paying.”
Mr Lim is the secretary-general of PV, which has long called for CECA to be abolished.
He wrote in a Facebook post, “You can’t be a fence sitter on this grave issue concerning Singaporean jobs!
You are either for Singaporean workers’ interests or you are in favour of foreign workers’ interest! Those in favour of the latter describe those who stand up for Singaporean workers’ rights as racist, xenophobic and nativist. They rather like the idea of being the global elites, whose main concerns are corporate profits rather than the wages of the Singaporean worker.”
Holding nothing back, Mr Lim added that he “would rather be insulted by these global elites than to sell my fellow Singaporeans down the river.
I will not keep quiet and see my country become an employer of last resort for hundreds of thousands of foreigners who cannot find employment back home, when our local well-qualified Singaporeans are deprived of good paying jobs and are encouraged to become Hawkers, Cleaners, PHV Drivers etc.”
- Advertisement -
Mr Lim also shared a Facebook post on last week’s ministerial statements on CECA by Mr Cheang Kok Ming, who is also part of PV.
Mr Cheang’s Jul 11 post has gone somewhat viral, with nearly 200 shares.
In the post, he also praised the PSP NCMPs, writing that Mr Leong had stood up to the pressure, and that he and Ms Poa had protected “Singaporean PMETs’ interest in a global economy.”
“Finally, when the curtain was drawn, we saw Leong Mun Wai and Hazel Poa standing tall in Parliament.
- Advertisement -
Well done!” /TISG
Photo: YT screengrab/ Tean Lim
- Advertisement -
Singapore — Lawyer and opposition leader Lim Tean said that his party, People’s Voice (VSP) supports the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) for “Standing Up For Singaporean Workers!”
PSP has repeatedly brought up concerns regarding CECA, the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, on what may be preferential treatment toward Indian professionals at the expense of Singaporean workers.
A lengthy debate was held in Parliament last Tuesday (Jul 6), when PSP Non-Constituency MP Leong Mun Wai sparred with Health Minister Ong Ye Kung and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng concerning the agreement.
At the end of the debate, while Mr Leong said that he and fellow PSP NCMP Hazel Poa are in favor of Singapore’s Free Trade Agreements, he said that PSP will look further as to “whether CECA has contributed to the influx of some of the PMETs into Singapore in relation to our overall foreign talent policy”.
- Advertisement -
“We don’t agree that CECA is net beneficial to Singapore at this stage,” Mr Leong also said, adding, “We know the importance of the FTAs for Singapore as an open economy and especially as a small city state. However, what we are concerned about is what price we are paying.”
Mr Lim is the secretary-general of PV, which has long called for CECA to be abolished.
He wrote in a Facebook post, “You can’t be a fence sitter on this grave issue concerning Singaporean jobs!
You are either for Singaporean workers’ interests or you are in favour of foreign workers’ interest! Those in favour of the latter describe those who stand up for Singaporean workers’ rights as racist, xenophobic and nativist. They rather like the idea of being the global elites, whose main concerns are corporate profits rather than the wages of the Singaporean worker.”
Holding nothing back, Mr Lim added that he “would rather be insulted by these global elites than to sell my fellow Singaporeans down the river.
I will not keep quiet and see my country become an employer of last resort for hundreds of thousands of foreigners who cannot find employment back home, when our local well-qualified Singaporeans are deprived of good paying jobs and are encouraged to become Hawkers, Cleaners, PHV Drivers etc.”
- Advertisement -
Mr Lim also shared a Facebook post on last week’s ministerial statements on CECA by Mr Cheang Kok Ming, who is also part of PV.
Mr Cheang’s Jul 11 post has gone somewhat viral, with nearly 200 shares.
In the post, he also praised the PSP NCMPs, writing that Mr Leong had stood up to the pressure, and that he and Ms Poa had protected “Singaporean PMETs’ interest in a global economy.”
“Finally, when the curtain was drawn, we saw Leong Mun Wai and Hazel Poa standing tall in Parliament.
- Advertisement -
Well done!” /TISG
Similar threads
