Current Affairs
Minister Chan Chun Sing throws smoke bomb on CECA concerns, by stating FTAs created more jobs for Singaporeans
Trade and Industry Minister Chan Chun Sing said on Saturday (9 Nov) that the Singapore-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) does not grant Indian nationals unconditional access into Singapore or immigration privileges.
Claims that the bilateral agreement has cost job opportunities for Singaporeans aim to stoke fears in times of economic uncertainties, said Mr Chan.
Media reports over Chan’s statement noted that there have been falsehoods surfacing in relation to free trade agreements (FTAs).
Channel News Asia noted one of such falsehoods is that CECA has allowed Indian nationals to take PMET (professional, managerial, executive and technician) jobs away from Singaporeans.
Mr Chan in his statement to the press, clarified that all FTAs, including CECA, place no obligations on Singapore with regard to immigration.
“Indian professionals, like any other professionals from other countries, have to meet MOM’s (Ministry of Manpower’s) existing qualifying criteria to work in Singapore. This applies to Employment Pass, S Pass, and work permit.
“Second, CECA does not give Indian nationals privileged immigration access. Anyone applying for Singapore citizenship must qualify according to our existing criteria,” said Mr Chan.
In response to claims that Singaporeans have lost out on PMET jobs, Mr Chan pointed out that the country’s network of FTAs has, in fact, increased these jobs by 400,000 to 1.25 million since 2005.
However, he did not state how many PMET jobs have been created from CECA. Not to mention, that there was an explosion in numbers of Permanent Residents during the period that Chan had stated. Clearly, the new PRs and new citizens converted from PRs, are those who take up PMET jobs as Immigration and Checkpoint Authority states that only a holder of an Employment Pass or S Pass is eligible to apply for PR.
While Mr Chan acknowledged that economic uncertainties have created anxieties over job security, he asserted that perpetuating fear, is not the right response.
“We understand, and we share Singaporeans’ concerns with competition and job prospects in the current uncertain economic environment. But the way to help Singaporeans is not to mislead them and create fear and anger,” said Mr Chan.
“The way to help Singaporeans is to make sure that first, we expand our markets for our enterprises. Train our workers constantly to stay ahead of competition. Never allow others to stoke the fears and racial biases of our people. Never do this for selfish personal or political reasons,” he added.
Mr Chan said that MOM is aware of companies that have breached fair hiring practices and will weed them out to protect Singaporean workers and businesses.
Controversial terms of CECA
On 29 June 2005, India and Singapore signed CECA. This free trade agreement not only enables Singapore and India to trade goods freely, it also allows professionals to work in each other country more easily.
The CECA was concluded after 13 rounds of negotiation and the Singapore’s side was led by none other than Heng Swee Keat, the current PM-in-waiting, who was then Permanent Secretary for Trade and Industry. Heng and his team essentially did the ground work together with their Indian counterparts. They then presented their proposals to the politicians for approval.
Some of the areas covered by CECA include: Improved Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreement, Trade in Goods, Customs, Investment, Trade in Services, Intellectual Property, etc.
However, controversial ones include concluding further Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) so as to facilitate the freer movement of professionals between Singapore and India. It helps to recognise each other’s education and professional qualifications so that Indian and Singaporean professionals from the following five professions could be able to practise in each other country:
- Accounting and auditing
- Architecture
- Medical (doctors)
- Dental
- Nursing
Already, Singapore now recognises degrees of Indian doctors and nurses from certain Indian universities.
Then, CECA also enables movement of persons between both countries. In particular, professionals employed in 127 specific occupations will be allowed entry and stay for up to 1 year or the duration of contract, whichever is less.
Also, intra-corporate transferees (i.e. managers, executives and specialists within organisations) will be permitted to stay and work in India and Singapore for an initial period of up to 2 years or the period of the contract, whichever is less.
The period of stay may be extended for period of up to 3 years at a time for a total term not exceeding 8 years.
Politicians ask about issues and benefits of CECA, with no answer provided
While Mr Chan professes that CECA brings jobs to Singaporeans and Indian nationals do not steal jobs from Singaporeans, there does not seem to be any data that support his claim.
For figures, we know that about 5,400 local professionals, managers, executives, and technicians (PMETs) were retrenched in 2018. Though it is the lowest recorded level since 2014, against a backdrop of local PMET employment growth of about 34,000, PMET accounted for 79.3% of local retrenchment and 2018 also saw a growth of 11,100 foreign S-Passes across all sectors.
Back in 2016, Workers’ Party Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower about the number of intra-company transferees (ICT) from India that have been approved under the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) with India from the year when the agreement came into effect to the latest year for which data is available. But in response, then-Manpower Minister Lim Swee Say said the ministry does not disclose data on foreign manpower with breakdown by nationality, including data on ICTs.
This policy of non-transparency remains the same till today.
Earlier this year, Dr Tan Cheng Bock stated at the official launch of Progress Singapore Party that his party will ask the government to come up with a balance sheet to account for how Singapore has benefited from the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) which it signed with India to allow citizens from India and Singapore to travel to each country to seek employment.
“How many local jobs have gone to Indian professionals and how many Singaporeans have gone to India?” asked Dr Tan.
In theory, of course, CECA could also benefit Singaporean professionals wanting to work in India but how many Singaporeans really want to work there to earn in rupees?
Current Affairs
Reforming Singapore’s defamation laws: Preventing legal weapons against free speech
Opinion: The tragic suicide of Geno Ong, linked to the financial stress from a defamation lawsuit, raises a critical issue: Singapore’s defamation laws need reform. These laws must not be weaponized to silence individuals.
by Alexandar Chia
This week, we hear the tragic story of the suicide of Geno Ong, with Ong citing the financial stress from the defamation lawsuit against her by Raymond Ng and Iris Koh.
Regardless of who’s right and who’s wrong, this Koh/Ng vs Ong affair raises a wider question at play – the issue of Singapore’s defamation laws and how it needs to be tightened.
Why is this needed? This is because defamation suits cannot be weaponised the way they have been in Singapore law. It cannot be used to threaten people into “shutting up”.
Article 14(2)(a) of the Constitution may permit laws to be passed to restrict free speech in the area of defamation, but it does not remove the fact that Article 14(1)(a) is still law, and it permits freedom of speech.
As such, although Article 14(2)(a) allows restrictions to be placed on freedom of speech with regard to the issue of defamation, it must not be to the extent where Article 14(1)(a)’s rights and liberties are not curtailed completely or heavily infringed on.
Sadly, that is the case with regard to precedence in defamation suits.
Let’s have a look at the defamation suit then-PM Goh Chok Tong filed against Dr Chee Soon Juan after GE 2001 for questions Dr Chee asked publicly about a $17 billion loan made to Suharto.
If we look at point 12 of the above link, in the “lawyer’s letter” sent to Dr Chee, Goh’s case of himself being defamed centred on lines Dr Chee used in his question, such as “you can run but you can’t hide”, and “did he not tell you about the $17 billion loan”?
In the West, such lines of questioning are easily understood at worse as hyperbolically figurative expressions with the gist of the meaning behind such questioning on why the loan to Suharto was made.
Unfortunately, Singapore’s defamation laws saw Dr Chee’s actions of imputing ill motives on Goh, when in the West, it is expected of incumbents to take the kind of questions Dr Chee asked, and such questions asked of incumbent office holders are not uncommon.
And the law permits pretty flimsy reasons such as “withdrawal of allegations” to be used as a deciding factor if a statement is defamatory or not – this is as per points 66-69 of the judgement.
This is not to imply or impute ill intent on Singapore courts. Rather, it shows how defamation laws in Singapore needs to be tightened, to ensure that a possible future scenario where it is weaponised as a “shut-up tool”, occurs.
These are how I suggest it is to be done –
- The law has to make mandatory, that for a case to go into a full lawsuit, there has to be a 3-round exchange of talking points and two attempts at legal mediation.
- Summary judgment should be banned from defamation suits, unless if one party fails to adduce evidence or a defence.
- A statement is to be proven false, hence, defamatory, if there is strictly material along with circumstantial evidence showing that the statement is false. Apologies and related should not be used as main determinants, given how many of these statements are made in the heat of the moment, from the natural feelings of threat and intimidation from a defamation suit.
- A question should only be considered defamatory if it has been repeated, after material facts of evidence are produced showing, beyond reasonable doubt, that the message behind the question, is “not so”, and if there is a directly mentioned subject in the question. For example, if an Opposition MP, Mr A, was found to be poisoned with a banned substance, and I ask openly on how Mr A got access to that substance, given that its banned, I can’t be found to have “defamed the government” with the question as 1) the government was not mentioned directly and 2) if the government has not produced material evidence that they indeed had no role in the poisoning affair, if they were directly mentioned.
- Damages should be tiered, with these tiers coded into the Defamation Act – the highest quantum of damages (i.e. those of a six-figured nature) is only to be reserved if the subject of defamation lost any form of office, revenue or position, or directly quantifiable public standing, or was subjected to criminal action, because of the act of defamation. If none of such occur, the maximum amount of damages a plaintiff in a defamation can claim is a 4-figure amount capped at $2000. This will prevent rich and powerful figures from using defamation suits and 6-figure damages to intimidate their questioners and detractors.
- All defendants of defamation suit should be allowed full access to legal aid schemes.
Again, this piece does not suggest bad-faith malpractice by the courts in Singapore. Rather, it is to suggest how to tighten up defamation laws to avoid it being used as the silencing hatchet.
Current Affairs
Man arrested for alleged housebreaking and theft of mobile phones in Yishun
A 23-year-old man was arrested for allegedly breaking into a Yishun Ring Road rental flat and stealing eight mobile phones worth S$3,400 from five tenants. The Singapore Police responded swiftly on 1 September, identifying and apprehending the suspect on the same day. The man has been charged with housebreaking, which carries a potential 10-year jail term.
SINGAPORE: A 23-year-old man has been arrested for allegedly breaking into a rental flat along Yishun Ring Road and stealing eight mobile phones from five tenants.
The incident occurred in the early hours on Sunday (1 September), according to a statement from the Singapore Police Force.
The authorities reported that they received a call for assistance at around 5 a.m. on that day.
Officers from the Woodlands Police Division quickly responded and, through ground enquiries and police camera footage, were able to identify and apprehend the suspect on the same day.
The stolen mobile phones, with an estimated total value of approximately S$3,400, were recovered hidden under a nearby bin.
The suspect was charged in court on Monday with housebreaking with the intent to commit theft.
If convicted, he could face a jail term of up to 10 years and a fine.
In light of this incident, the police have advised property owners to take precautions to prevent similar crimes.
They recommend securing all doors, windows, and other openings with good quality grilles and padlocks when leaving premises unattended, even for short periods.
The installation of burglar alarms, motion sensor lights, and CCTV cameras to cover access points is also advised. Additionally, residents are urged to avoid keeping large sums of cash and valuables in their homes.
The investigation is ongoing.
Last month, police disclosed that a recent uptick in housebreaking incidents in private residential estates across Singapore has been traced to foreign syndicates, primarily involving Chinese nationals.
Preliminary investigations indicate that these syndicates operate in small groups, targeting homes by scaling perimeter walls or fences.
The suspects are believed to be transient travelers who enter Singapore on Social Visit Passes, typically just a day or two before committing the crimes.
Before this recent surge in break-ins, housebreaking cases were on the decline, with 59 reported in the first half of this year compared to 70 during the same period last year.
However, between 1 June and 4 August 2024, there were 10 reported housebreaking incidents, predominantly in private estates around the Rail Corridor and Bukit Timah Road.
The SPF has intensified efforts to engage residents near high-risk areas by distributing crime prevention advisories, erecting alert signs, and training them to patrol their neighborhoods, leading to an increase in reports of suspicious activity.
-
Singapore3 days ago
Minister K Shanmugam transfers Astrid Hill GCB to UBS Trustees for S$88 Million following Ridout Road controversy
-
Singapore7 days ago
Singapore woman’s suicide amidst legal battle raises concerns over legal system
-
Parliament4 days ago
Minister Shanmugam rejects request for detailed information on visa-free visitor offences: Cites bilateral considerations
-
Diplomacy1 week ago
India PM Narendra Modi meets with PM Lawrence Wong; Four MoUs signed
-
Opinion2 weeks ago
Singaporean voters and the ‘Battered Wife Syndrome’
-
Parliament5 days ago
PAP MPs attack WP Gerald Giam in Parliament over NTUC independence from ruling party
-
Politics1 week ago
PAP adopts SDP policies after criticizing them: Dr Chee urges Singaporeans to see through tactics
-
Politics4 days ago
11 former or current PAP MPs & Ministers underscore heavy presence in NTUC leadership