Last Saturday (9 Nov), Trade and Industry Minister Chan Chun Sing said that the Singapore-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) does not grant Indian nationals unconditional access into Singapore or immigration privileges. The news was picked up by the Straits Times (ST) and reported the following day (‘Free Trade Agreements have created more jobs for Singaporeans: Chan Chun Sing‘, 10 Nov).
Essentially, ST reported:

Trade and Industry Minister Chan Chun Sing has come out in defence of Singapore’s free trade agreements (FTAs), saying these have helped more Singaporeans get employed in higher-skilled jobs.
He made the point yesterday as he refuted criticism that one such agreement, between Singapore and India, had given Indian professionals unfettered access to jobs and citizenship here.
Such falsehoods, circulated online and in WhatsApp chat groups, were aimed at scaring and dividing Singaporeans at a time of economic uncertainty, he said. Some purveyors of such untruths had gone further to play the racial card.
Warning against such behaviour, he said: “The Government takes a very serious view of these attempts to rattle Singaporeans and divide our society.”

ST also raised the point that CECA critics have pointed to India taking advantage of the “intra-company transferee” clause to move large number of Indian nationals to work here.
ST defended the government saying that the government has said there is a stringent definition for intra-corporate transferees and additional criteria that make it harder to game the system.
It then quoted the example that to qualify under CECA, intra-corporate transferees must have worked for their company for at least one year before being posted to Singapore and they are only allowed to stay for a total term not exceeding five years.
What ST said was incorrect.
TOC points to actual CECA text showing otherwise
Yesterday (11 Nov), TOC also published news of what Chan said on Saturday with regard to Indian nationals working in Singapore under CECA (‘Chan didn’t disclose that there is no economic needs test or quotas on agreed services under CECA‘).
TOC points to the exact text of Chapter 9 on “MOVEMENT OF NATURAL PERSONS” agreed by both countries in CECA. TOC highlighted that CECA allows “intra-corporate transferees” to, in fact, work for up to total of 8 years in the host country.
And added, “Note that for intra-corporate transferees, it is defined as an employee who has been employed for a period of not less than either six months in company and one year industry experience or three years industry experience immediately preceding the date of the application for entry.”
Hence, under CECA, the total number of years an Indian national can work in Singapore as an “intra-company transferee” is 8 and not 5 years, and the person only needs to be recruited by the company in India for just 6 months and not 1 year before his or her transfer to Singapore.
TOC also highlighted that there is no quota requirement imposed on intra-corporate transferees and under Article 9.3 of CECA, all the “intra-corporate transferees” are to be exempted from any “labour market testing” or “economic needs testing”.
“To top it all, Article 9.6 even allows the ‘intra-corporate transferees’ to bring in their spouses or dependents to work here too,” TOC shared.
ST says sorry
After TOC’s article was published yesterday, ST corrected itself and apologised for its erroneous report. Its original online article was later updated late yesterday night with the correct figures:

This morning (12 Nov), ST also published a retraction (‘What it should have been‘) with the following text:

In Sunday’s report, “FTAs have created more jobs for S’poreans: Chan”, we said intra-corporate transferees must have worked for their company for at least one year before being posted to Singapore. We also said they are allowed to stay for a total term not exceeding five years.
These conditions for transferees are set out in the World Trade Organisation’s General Agreement on Trade in Services. But under the Singapore-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (Ceca), such transferees are required to have worked for their company for a period of not less than six months, among other things. They are also allowed to stay for a total term not exceeding eight years.
We are sorry for the error.

It tried to explain its error by saying that it was referencing WTO’s general agreement.
Unemployment rate going up for Singaporeans
Meanwhile, Manpower Ministry released the Labour Market Report Advance Release for Q3 last month, showing that even though growth of total employment was higher, the number of retrenchments rose over the quarter with unemployment rates inching up. The overall unemployment rate increased over the quarter, from 2.2 to 2.3%. For Singaporeans, the unemployment rate was higher rising from 3.2 to 3.3%.
Manpower Minister Josephine Teo said, “This suggests that mismatches are widening. It could be jobseekers not having the skills to access available jobs, or jobs being insufficiently attractive.”

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Tan Tock Seng hospital dismiss staff over offensive comments made on social media

Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH) has announced on Friday evening, that it…

毕丹星回应《一条无障碍坡道》评论 点评“P.A.(P)式”民主

在上月26日,《联合早报》发布一篇由高级记者黄伟曼撰写的评论《一条无障碍坡道》,其中提及: “以目前围绕这起事件的舆论来评断,多数选民估计不太懂,也不太在乎在反对党区内市镇会与人协之间微妙的相处模式。 他们的思考逻辑很简单,即一条应惠及老弱残病等有需要者的无障碍通道的建造被拖延了,而若这背后可能有基层政治操作,那必然违反公平原则,在这过程中也牺牲了人民的利益,不能被接受。” 对此,工人党秘书长暨阿裕尼集选区议员毕丹星回应,针对上述第一段的说法,或许作者就已忽略,败选行动党候选人,仍能被委任为人民协会基层顾问,本身就有违民主。 至于是否公平原则,毕丹星认为,要探究人协在反对党选区的立场,不仅仅限于讨论对坡道建设的冷漠态度。他解释,败选行动党基层顾问不仅掌控纳税人的钱,他们的影响力更为深远和政治化,早已不是什么秘密。 他在昨日发布的脸书贴文列举其中一些例子:包括公民权仪式,由行动党政府委任的基层顾问主持,而在反对党选区,新公民是从败选行动党候选人手上领过身份证的,“难道总统旗下的公务员,或非政治人物来主持这类仪式,不是更妥当吗?” 至于市镇理事会靠“两条腿”:民选议员和基层领袖方能成事。市镇会不仅把建屋局权限赋予议员,也交予基层领袖。然而,如果不是在人协旗下的基层代表,行动党政府是不会予以承认的,反对党志愿者也不会得到基层身份。 故此,毕丹星指出在反对党选区,市镇会无基层代表;而基层领袖是由败选行动党候选人委任、受基层顾问管理的。 其三,社区设施改进委员会(CIPC)审批拨款,在人协缺席的情况,反对党市镇会只好依靠自己的盈余来支撑惠民项目,他指阿裕尼-后港市镇会多年来都是这么做;但与此同时行动党市镇会却可以透过CIPC拨款进行项目,而得以保持财政盈余。 即便如此,当阿裕尼-后港市镇会在2011年出现赤字,《海峡时报》甚至还质问“市镇会此前的300万盈余去了哪?” 最后,毕丹星反问,行动党在管理人协上,究竟政治和国人利益孰轻孰重? “答案或许不言而喻,我希望更多记者和政治观察员,可以超越国内目前最著名坡道议题,看得更为深远,去分析拖延建设的政治机制。诚如“选民的逻辑”,建设性政治岂非更应着重公平吗?”

Country's economy faces several downside risks, says Minister Chan Chun Sing

During an interview with Bloomberg TV earlier today (20 May), Minister for…

母亲控竹脚妇幼医院将急诊入口“隐秘” 耽误儿子急救时间

每分每秒都是关键!相信大家都会有因家人的不适而前往医院看病,尤其是碰上紧急状况,一分一秒都尤其关键。然而,近日一名母亲却因为找不到急诊室门口,也可能因此耽误了已失去意识的儿子急救时间,导致儿子身亡,令人不胜唏嘘。 该名母亲Juliana Goh 16日在脸书上悲痛地记录儿子不幸离世的过程,并控诉竹脚妇幼医院(KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital)“没有同情心”。 Juliana忆述早在8月24日清晨,儿子因为莫名的头痛和心跳加速而失去意识,于是立即将他送往竹脚妇幼医院,并在10分钟内抵达目的地。 然而,他们在抵达医院后却因灯光灰暗,找不到急诊室门口,最终只能将停在最亮的紧急妇产课中心(Urgent O&G Centre)。根据医院网站表示,该中心是为紧急产科和妇科疾病的女性所设置。…