Connect with us

Current Affairs

陈振声驳斥 CECA没给印度国民移民我国“开方便之门”

Published

on

新加坡贸工部长陈振声指出,新加坡-印度全面经济合作协定(Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement,简称CECA)并没有授予印度国民无条件进入我国,或成为我国移民的特权。

他于周末(9日)指出,“有关双边协议为国人带来了就业机会,旨在减轻经济不稳定时民众的担忧”。

在社媒和网上流传的一个说法,指CECA允许印度国民夺走我国专业人员、经理、高管和技术人员(简称PMET)的就职机会。

陈振声指出,和其他国家或地区的专才一样,印度专才也必须符合我国人力部的资格标准,才能到我国工作,或申请就业准证、S准证等。

他表示,我国自由贸易协定网络自2005年以来,已经增加了40万份就业机会,达到125万个,但是他并没有声明有关就业机会中,有多少是因为CECA而获得,也没有指出国人从中受益多少。

“我们了解且明白国人在目前的不稳定经济环境下,产生了对竞争力和就业前景的担忧。但是误导国人并不能帮助到他们,只会制造恐慌和愤怒。”

“要帮助国人,首先我们要扩大企业市场,持续培训我国员工,以保持优势的竞争力。并且不让他人煽动我国的种族主义可人民恐惧,更不该因为个人私心或政治理由而如此做。”

CECA放宽外劳工作证条例

然而,自CECA合约在2005年生效以来,我国在发放工作准证给印度籍员工方面都比较宽松。在CECA条约下,两国人民可以进行的事项包括了:

  • 允许从事127种特定职业的专才进入两国,并且可以以从事商业活动的专业人员身份,在该国停留长达一年之久。有关人员必须拥有邀请方的“合约”。相关职业包括有工程师、建筑师、资讯科技人员、测量师、医生、牙医、会计师、教授、审计师和分析员等。CECA并没有指明相关专才不能在他们目前工作合约结束后,透过新的合约重返东道国工作一年;
  • 跨国公司内部人员调动将允许专才入境,并且工作长达两年,可延长至不超过8年;
  • 持有五年多次旅行签证的商务客户,将获得长达两个月,以商业目的入境期限,并且可延长一个月;
  • 短期服务供应商获准入境例行合约义务长达90天;以及

值得关注的是,对于公司内部调动人士是指受雇于公司不少过六个月、拥有一年至三年的工厂经验的员工。

公司内部调动人员没有限制配额,即表示印度公司可以聘请整个“村庄”的员工,然后在他们工作了6个月后,“打包”调任到新加坡。

未设定“公司内部调动人员”限额

此外,根据CECA合约第9.3条例,所有“公司内部调动人员”均可免除任何员工测试或经济需求测试,即表示我国内保持公平竞争力框架的经济需求测试,都不能用于这些内部调动人员身上。

最重要的是,在该合约第9.6条约下,公司内部调动人员可以带着配偶和家眷到工作国家。

由于此合约没设定限额,因此很多印度籍资讯科技员工以内部调动人员的身份,进入我国。这些印度资讯科技公司中大部分坐落在樟宜商业园内,而且几乎备有雇佣新加坡人。

减少引进印度专才被指违约

但是最近数年,经过很多国内的专才们投诉有关歧视性雇佣方式,以及国内专才失业率上升的情况,我国政府才减少了印度籍专才入境的批准。

根据《印度时报》在2017年有关“新加坡阻止印度籍资讯科技人员签证”,眼见到新加坡工作的印度籍专才工作准证持续减少,该国政府指责我国政府违反了贸易合约。部分的印度资讯科技公司也受到影响,包括了HCL、塔塔咨询服务公司(TCS)、印孚瑟斯(Infosys)、维布络安舍(Wipro Unza)、Cognizant以及L&T Infotech。

“这个(签证问题)一直存在一段时间了,但是自2016年初期,有关签证数量就持续下跌。所有印度公司都接收到出于公平考量的商议结果,即意味着他们将雇佣当地人”,印度资讯科技协会Nasscom主席如此说道。

这即表示,在2005年至2015年的10年期间,相关公司都一直愉快地获得我国政府所给予的工作准证,让他们的员工能够在CECA合约下来到新加坡工作,所以才没有在那段“欢乐时光”下,公开发出任何的投诉。然而有关的伤害已经形成,失业的国人们最终只能从事私召车工作,且很难重返工作岗位。

有报告指出,印度政府作为反击,除非我国解决了对方的工业问题,否则决定不扩大商品范围,导致新加坡商品进口关税削减。

尤其印度政府反对我国政府使用公平考虑框架,以规范在我国就业的印度籍人才。一名印度官员指出,“尽管CECA合约明确指出,商定服务无需经过经济需求测试或配额,但是他们(新加坡)仍然这样做。这已经违反了合约”。

尚达曼陈川仁约见部分银行

时任副总理的尚达曼(Tharman Shanmugaratnam)在2017年访问印度,并曾在该国财政部组织的经济论坛上发表谈话。当时就有人直截了当地站起来,询问有关印度籍专才迁入新加坡的消息。尚达曼当时指出,人员流动必须受到限制,否则提高企业生产力的动力就会减弱,而且从根本上来说,你将成为不属于自己社会的人士。

“开放了限制,却没有任何政策框架来管理以及限制进入就业市场的人员,是不可取的。这不仅是错误的政策,更是错误的经济学。”

事实上,从事金融业的新加坡专才在2015至2016年期间,就开始抱怨此具歧视性的雇佣方式。尚达曼和时任人力部部长的陈川仁在当时就不得不召集我国部分银行,要求他们停止“聘用自己人”的做法。这是陈川仁曾在2013年的国会中,如是指出。

陈川仁并没有透露相关的银行或国籍,但是许多网友指出,尚达曼和陈川仁应该是和一些以印度国民为主的银行商谈。

在CECA合约下,新加坡成为印度的最大投资国,但是相信相关投资主要来自新加坡政府以及淡马锡旗下的关联公司,如星展集团(DBS)、胜科(Sembcorp)、腾飞(Ascendas)等。

因此,就算陈振声指出,CECA合约并没有给予印度国民无条件入境的工作机会,但是已经有许多人获准入境,尤其是在相关合约签署后的首十年,和国内专才争夺就业机会。不然,尚达曼和陈川仁也不需要和相关银行进行商讨了。

Continue Reading

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.

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Consumers Association of Singapore fined S$20,000 for PDPA breaches following two data security incidents

Published

on

By

The Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) has been fined S$20,000 by the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) for breaches under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA).

According to a judgement which was published on 28 August, the fine was imposed due to the consumer watchdog’s failure to implement reasonable security measures to protect the personal data in its possession and to establish necessary policies and practices required under the PDPA.

The breaches resulted in two significant incidents, one in October 2022 and another in June 2023, where the personal data of up to 34,760 individuals was potentially compromised.

Both incidents were handled under the Expedited Decision Procedure (EDP) at the request of CASE, with the organization admitting to all the facts and contraventions of the PDPA, leading to a faster resolution of the case.

The First Incident: Phishing Attack in October 2022

The first incident occurred in October 2022 when a threat actor accessed CASE’s email accounts and sent phishing emails from its official email addresses.

On 8 October 2022, some consumers received unsolicited emails from “[email protected],” which falsely claimed that their complaints had been escalated to the “collections and compensation department” and that they were eligible for compensation.

The recipients were asked to provide their banking details by clicking on a chat icon.

The following day, similar phishing emails were sent from “[email protected],” an account used for complaints that had progressed to mediation. CASE later discovered that the phishing emails had affected up to 22,542 email addresses.

Further investigations revealed that the phishing emails likely resulted from the threat actor obtaining login credentials from a CASE employee via a phishing attack.

The compromised accounts led to the sending of 5,205 phishing emails to 4,945 recipients. Although CASE acted swiftly to suspend the affected accounts and reset all administrator passwords, three consumers reported that they had clicked on the phishing links and collectively lost S$217,900. CASE subsequently lodged a police report.

The Second Incident: Data Breach During Vendor Migration

While PDPC was investigating the first incident, a second breach came to light in June 2023. On 22 June 2023, PDPC received a complaint about a phishing email that replicated a consumer’s complaint previously submitted to CASE.

This led to the discovery that the personal data of 12,218 individuals, including names, email addresses, contact numbers, and complaint details, had been exposed. The PDPC concluded that the breach likely occurred during a data migration exercise conducted by CASE between December 2019 and January 2020 when CASE switched vendors.

Investigations revealed that CASE’s contract with one of its vendors, Total eBiz Solutions Pte Ltd (TES), did not stipulate clear security responsibilities. This lack of contractual clarity contributed to the data breach during the migration process, highlighting CASE’s negligent vendor management.

PDPC Findings and Penalties

The PDPC found that CASE had failed to enforce its password management policy, with some passwords not meeting minimum length and complexity requirements and others remaining unchanged for up to four years. Furthermore, CASE’s vendor management was deemed negligent, as one of its contracts did not specify clear security responsibilities, putting personal data at risk.

CASE admitted to not conducting regular security awareness training for its staff, with the last session held five years before the first incident.

The PDPC also noted that CASE lacked an Information and Communications Technology (ICT) policy, particularly in relation to patching and maintaining IT systems. The absence of a documented IT infrastructure management plan, insufficient logging and monitoring practices, and the lack of security reviews over the three years preceding the first breach were significant failures highlighted in the judgment.

In assessing the financial penalty, the PDPC considered the nature and gravity of the breaches, the duration of non-compliance, and CASE’s annual turnover. The fine of $20,000 was determined to be appropriate in light of these factors.

Remedial Actions by CASE

It is said that CASE, which is headed by Mr Melvin Yong, People’s Action Party Member of Parliament for Radin Mas, has implemented several measures to enhance its cybersecurity in response to the breaches.

These include introducing multi-factor authentication for all web-based applications, strengthening password complexity requirements, decommissioning end-of-life devices, and implementing patch management software for security updates.

CASE has also revised its contracts with outsourced vendors to include data protection clauses and mandated annual data protection training for all staff members.

CASE is working towards obtaining the Cyber Essentials Mark and the Data Protection Trust Mark to reinforce its commitment to safeguarding personal data and complying with PDPA obligations.

The PDPC has directed CASE to review and update its data protection policies, rectify all identified security gaps, and report back within one week of completion. The organization has also been instructed to conduct a penetration test after addressing the vulnerabilities to ensure no further security gaps exist.

The post Consumers Association of Singapore fined S$20,000 for PDPA breaches following two data security incidents appeared first on Gutzy Asia.

Continue Reading

Trending