In an opinion piece today, Straits Times Associate Editor Ravi Velloor made an attempt to defend CECA, the free trade agreement Singapore signed with India on 29 June 2005 (‘Singapore GE2020: The long view on Ceca and other free trade agreements‘, 19 Jul).

According to his LinkedIn profile, Velloor graduated from St Joseph’s College in Bangalore and did a Master’s degree in Sociology at the Delhi School of Economics. The ST article does not include a note or disclaimer about Velloor’s educational background.

The CECA was a subject of much debate during the recent general election (GE) amid a wave of retrenchments and unemployment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the live debate, Progress Singapore Party’s (PSP) Francis Yuen said, “We have a lot of foreign professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) working here. I think there are about 400,000 of them, and yet we have about more than 100,000 of (local) PMETs who are out of a job.

“We believe that we need foreign PMETs to complement but we need to believe that there is opportunity for us to slow it down.”

The PSP, as well as the Workers’ Party (WP), People’s Voice (PV) and several other opposition parties had come out to say that they think Singapore’s free-trade-agreements should be reviewed, singling out CECA in particular as contributing factor to the unemployment rate of citizens.

However, Velloor claimed in his article, “Today, there is no denying that both sides gained (from Ceca). If you look past visuals of the large number of Indian faces at lunchtime in areas like Marina Bay Financial Centre and the IT-concentrated Changi Business Park, Ceca has delivered for Singapore,.”

“Official data on Statlink shows bilateral trade rose from $16.6 billion in 2005 to $24.3 billion last year. Singapore companies’ investments in India, a mere $1.3 billion in 2005, rose to $60.9 billion by the end of 2018.”

It’s not known, however, how much of the total investments came from the GLCs of Singapore.

He continued, “More than 80 per cent of listed offshore bonds by Indian issuers are listed on the Singapore Exchange and Singapore-based investors have assets under management in India valued in excess of $100 billion.”

Then, there is banking. Velloor shared that DBS Bank now operates 34 branches across 24 Indian cities.

“In the Indian financial year that ended in March, DBS’ net India revenue rose 24 per cent to 14.44 billion rupees ($272.3 million) while net profit rose more than sixfold,” Velloor noted.

But according to statements released by DBS Bank last year, its subsidiary DBS Bank India only made a net profit of INR 14.5 crore (S$2.8 million) for fiscal year ending 31 Mar 2019 against a loss of INR 533 crore (S$102 million) for the previous fiscal year of FY2017-18 (‘DBS makes net profit of S$2.8m in India in last fiscal year thanks to CECA‘).

Velloor: Temporary movement of nationals not unusual in FTAs

Velloor argued that much of the Singaporean misgivings about CECA came from a misunderstanding of the listing of 127 professions under the Temporary Movement of Natural Persons chapter. Other free trade agreements have also included such commitments on professionals, he said. CECA in fact has the shortest duration – just a year – committed, he said.

“Nevertheless, this has raised fears of a flood of Indian professionals arriving to steal well-paying jobs at a time when PMETs, at 58 per cent, decisively dominate the local job market,” he noted.

“Temporary movement of natural persons is not unusual in trade agreements and also figure in the other FTAs Singapore signed, for instance, with Australia and New Zealand. None of them confer unfettered right of entry for foreign professionals.”

“Similarly, where intra-company transfers are involved – a foreign line manager who might seek to pull in a loyal underling, for instance – the scrutiny levels have tightened before an Employment Pass (EP) is granted.”

Velloor assured that Singapore’s Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) is also available for Singaporeans to address specific grievances on any discriminatory hiring practices.

However, a closer inspection of CECA reveals that intra-corporate transferees are permitted to stay and work in India and Singapore for an initial period of up to 2 years or less, but their stay can be extended for a total term not exceeding 8 years (‘Heng led team in concluding CECA with India opening up SG for Indian FTs to work in‘).

Furthermore in Article 9.3, it said, “Neither Party shall require labour market testing, economic needs testing or other procedures of similar effects as a condition for temporary entry in respect of natural persons upon whom the benefits of this Chapter are conferred.”

That is to say, economic needs testing like Singapore’s FCF which ensures fair hiring of Singaporeans cannot be applied to “intra-corporate transferees”. To top it all, Article 9.6 even allows the “intra-corporate transferees” to bring their spouses or dependants into Singapore to work. Hence, Indian companies can easily hire new staff in India and “transfer” them to Singapore.

Velloor: Tata employs 40 percent locals

With regard to the accusations of Indian companies like those in Changi Business Park hiring only Indian nationals and not Singaporeans, Velloor defended them saying that, for example, 40 percent of people hired by Tata Consultancy Services were locals.

“The better companies, whether they are the global banks or Indian conglomerates, realise they need to do their part (to hire locals) and indeed have moved to do so,” Velloor pointed out.

“India’s US$113 billion Tata group, for instance, has 20 operating companies and 28 entities in Singapore, employing a total of 3,300 staff. At its flagship Tata Consultancy Services, its software services arm, the percentage of local residents employed has doubled to nearly 40 per cent over the past five years.”

But of course, Velloor did not give any breakdown of how many of these local hires were actually Singaporeans, since PRs are typically classified as locals too.

Also, a look at the reviews of the company left by employees on employment platform Glassdoor shows then at a very low rating of only 2.9 stars out of five. In fact, several employees noted that there is little to no career progression within the company and that it unfairly favours expats, particularly those from India.

  

There is also the question of whether Singapore produces enough of its own to serve the economy’s expanding needs, Velloor said, especially in view of the multi-billion dollar foreign investment commitments EDB has drawn in.

“This issue of foreigners competing for PMET jobs will not go away. Indeed, the next periodic jobs report will surely bring it into focus again as retrenchments proceed. But if ever there was a time for cool minds and a long view, it is now,” he wrote.

Subscribe
Notify of
25 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

PM Lee at the SUSS Ministerial Forum: "We must be able to to get our people to adapt to climate change"

While speaking at a ministerial forum with students from the Singapore University…

国内再传医院牙科诊所误用未完全消毒器具事件

陈笃生医院牙科诊所,被指在至少八名病患身上,曾使用未经过最后阶段消毒的牙科器具。 这也是自去年,全国牙科中心出现类似疏失后,第二次有医院发生使用未完全消毒牙科器具的疏忽。类似疏失重演令卫生部感到失望。 陈笃生医院发声明指出,他们在牙科诊所发现,有八套牙科器具,没有经过第四个、即蒸汽消毒的步骤。 而受影响的病患是在上月28日至本月5日之间,到该医院牙科诊所就医。 院方称已完成前三消毒步骤,感染风险非常低 作为预防措施,陈笃生医院牙科诊所的一些治疗程序从12月8日起已经暂停。院方已实施更多管控措施,提高工作人员的意识,强调有关全面遵守护理程序的重要性。部分门诊牙科服务将从明日起起陆续恢复。 不过院方进一步解释,牙科器具一般会经过四个步骤的清洗消毒,这八包牙科器具,已完成之前三个步骤的消毒,近乎百分百消毒,因此病患受传染风险非常低。 院方表示,他们通知了在同期间到诊所接受治疗的575个病患,向他们解答他们的担忧。 卫生部则勒令国立健保集团和陈笃生医院,加强管制措施,和检讨有关疏忽。卫生部长颜金勇则表示,该部讲研究此事件,并考虑采取进一步行动,以降低整个医疗领域再次发生类似事件的风险。 去年6月12日,我国最大的全国牙科中心,被揭发至少在72名病患身上,使用未完全消毒的牙科器具。当月到该牙科中心看诊的病患,就多大714人。 事件发生后,卫生部针对所有有牌公立和私立医疗机构的中央消毒供应部门(CSSD)进行审查,以评估是否符合规定的消毒程序。经审计结果显示,所有消毒程序都达标。

Aetos auxiliary police officer found dead with a gunshot wound to his head at the Woodlands Checkpoint

An Aetos auxiliary police officer was found dead with a gunshot wound…

The PAP – A victim of its own success

~by: Ghui~ In the 60s and 70s, we believed wholeheartedly in the…