Connect with us

Commentaries

Ministerial Statements proved nothing more than smoke-screens to sell narrative that FTAs are important for S’pore’s survival

Published

3 years ago

on

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.

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 25% 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.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
38 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
38 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Commentaries

Lim Tean criticizes Govt’s rejection of basic income report, urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices

Lim Tean, leader of Peoples Voice (PV), criticizes the government’s defensive response to the basic living income report, accusing it of avoiding reality.

He calls on citizens to assess affordability and choose MPs who can truly enhance their lives in the upcoming election.

Published

1 year ago

on

15 September 2023

By

SINGAPORE: A recently published report, “Minimum Income Standard 2023: Household Budgets in a Time of Rising Costs,” unveils figures detailing the necessary income households require to maintain a basic standard of living, using the Minimum Income Standard (MIS) method.

The newly released study, spearheaded by Dr Ng Kok Hoe of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) specifically focuses on working-age households in 2021 and presents the latest MIS budgets, adjusted for inflation from 2020 to 2022.

The report detailed that:

  • The “reasonable starting point” for a living wage in Singapore was S$2,906 a month.
  • A single parent with a child aged two to six required S$3,218 per month.
  • Partnered parents with two children, one aged between seven and 12 and the other between 13 and 18, required S$6,426 a month.
  • A single elderly individual required S$1,421 a month.
  • Budgets for both single and partnered parent households averaged around S$1,600 per member. Given recent price inflation, these figures have risen by up to 5% in the current report.

Singapore Govt challenges MIS 2023 report’s representation of basic needs

Regrettably, on Thursday (14 Sept), the Finance Ministry (MOF), Manpower Ministry (MOM), and Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) jointly issued a statement dismissing the idea suggested by the report, claiming that minimum household income requirements amid inflation “might not accurately reflect basic needs”.

Instead, they claimed that findings should be seen as “what individuals would like to have.”, and further defended their stances for the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) and other measures to uplift lower-wage workers.

The government argued that “a universal wage floor is not necessarily the best way” to ensure decent wages for lower-wage workers.

The government’s statement also questions the methodology of the Minimum Income Standards (MIS) report, highlighting limitations such as its reliance on respondent profiles and group dynamics.

“The MIS approach used is highly dependent on respondent profiles and on group dynamics. As the focus groups included higher-income participants, the conclusions may not be an accurate reflection of basic needs.”

The joint statement claimed that the MIS approach included discretionary expenditure items such as jewellery, perfumes, and overseas holidays.

Lim Tean slams Government’s response to basic living income report

In response to the government’s defensive reaction to the recent basic living income report, Lim Tean, leader of the alternative party Peoples Voice (PV), strongly criticizes the government’s apparent reluctance to confront reality, stating, “It has its head buried in the sand”.

He strongly questioned the government’s endorsement of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) as a means to uplift the living standards of the less fortunate in Singapore, describing it as a misguided approach.

In a Facebook video on Friday (15 Sept), Lim Tean highlighted that it has become a global norm, especially in advanced and first-world countries, to establish a minimum wage, commonly referred to as a living wage.

“Everyone is entitled to a living wage, to have a decent life, It is no use boasting that you are one of the richest countries in the world that you have massive reserves, if your citizens cannot have a decent life with a decent living wage.”

Lim Tean cited his colleague, Leong Sze Hian’s calculations, which revealed a staggering 765,800 individuals in Singapore, including Permanent Residents and citizens, may not earn the recommended living wage of $2,906, as advised by the MIS report.

“If you take away the migrant workers or the foreign workers, and take away those who do not work, underage, are children you know are unemployed, and the figure is staggering, isn’t it?”

“You know you are looking at a very substantial percentage of the workforce that do not have sufficient income to meet basic needs, according to this report.”

He reiterated that the opposition parties, including the People’s Voice and the People’s Alliance, have always called for a minimum wage, a living wage which the government refuses to countenance.

Scepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs

In a time of persistently high inflation, Lim Tean expressed skepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs.

He cautioned against believing in predictions of imminent inflation reduction and lower interest rates below 2%, labeling them as unrealistic.

Lim Tean urged Singaporeans to assess their own affordability in these challenging times, especially with the impending GST increase.

He warned that a 1% rise in GST could lead to substantial hikes in everyday expenses, particularly food prices.

Lim Tean expressed concern that the PAP had become detached from the financial struggles of everyday Singaporeans, citing their high salaries and perceived insensitivity to the common citizen’s plight.

Lim Tean urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices

Highlighting the importance of the upcoming election, Lim Tean recommended that citizens seriously evaluate the affordability of their lives.

“If you ask yourself about affordability, you will realise that you have no choice, In the coming election, but to vote in a massive number of opposition Members of Parliament, So that they can make a difference.”

Lim Tean emphasized the need to move beyond the traditional notion of providing checks and balances and encouraged voters to consider who could genuinely improve their lives.

“To me, the choice is very simple. It is whether you decide to continue with a life, that is going to become more and more expensive: More expensive housing, higher cost of living, jobs not secure because of the massive influx of foreign workers,” he declared.

“Or you choose members of Parliament who have your interests at heart and who want to make your lives better.”

Continue Reading

Commentaries

Political observers call for review of Singapore’s criteria of Presidential candidates and propose 5 year waiting period for political leaders

Singaporean political observers express concern over the significantly higher eligibility criteria for private-sector presidential candidates compared to public-sector candidates, calling for adjustments.

Some also suggest a five year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before allowed to partake in the presidential election.

Notably, The Workers’ Party has earlier reiterated its position that the current qualification criteria favor PAP candidates and has called for a return to a ceremonial presidency instead of an elected one.

Published

1 year ago

on

5 September 2023

By

While the 2023 Presidential Election in Singapore concluded on Friday (1 September), discussions concerning the fairness and equity of the electoral system persist.

Several political observers contend that the eligibility criteria for private-sector individuals running for president are disproportionately high compared to those from the public sector, and they propose that adjustments be made.

They also recommend a five-year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before being allowed to participate in the presidential election.

Aspiring entrepreneur George Goh Ching Wah, announced his intention to in PE 2023 in June. However, His application as a candidate was unsuccessful, he failed to receive the Certificate of Eligibility (COE) on 18 August.

Mr Goh had expressed his disappointment in a statement after the ELD’s announcement, he said, the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) took a very narrow interpretation of the requirements without explaining the rationale behind its decision.

As per Singapore’s Constitution, individuals running for the presidency from the private sector must have a minimum of three years’ experience as a CEO in a company.

This company should have consistently maintained an average shareholders’ equity of at least S$500 million and sustained profitability.

Mr Goh had pursued eligibility through the private sector’s “deliberative track,” specifically referring to section 19(4)(b)(2) of the Singapore Constitution.

He pointed out five companies he had led for over three years, collectively claiming a shareholders’ equity of S$1.521 billion.

Notably, prior to the 2016 revisions, the PEC might have had the authority to assess Mr Goh’s application similarly to how it did for Mr Tan Jee Say in the 2011 Presidential Election.

Yet, in its current formulation, the PEC is bound by the definitions laid out in the constitution.

Calls for equitable standards across public and private sectors

According to Singapore’s Chinese media outlet, Shin Min Daily News, Dr Felix Tan Thiam Kim, a political analyst at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Singapore, noted that in 2016, the eligibility criteria for private sector candidates were raised from requiring them to be executives of companies with a minimum capital of S$100 million to CEOs of companies with at least S$500 million in shareholder equity.

However, the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates remained unchanged. He suggests that there is room for adjusting the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates.

Associate Professor Bilver Singh, Deputy Head of the Department of Political Science at the National University of Singapore, believes that the constitutional requirements for private-sector individuals interested in running are excessively stringent.

He remarked, “I believe it is necessary to reassess the relevant regulations.”

He points out that the current regulations are more favourable for former public officials seeking office and that the private sector faces notably greater challenges.

“While it may be legally sound, it may not necessarily be equitable,” he added.

Proposed five-year waiting period for political leaders eyeing presidential race

Moreover, despite candidates severing ties with their political parties in pursuit of office, shedding their political affiliations within a short timeframe remains a challenging endeavour.

A notable instance is Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who resigned from the People’s Action Party (PAP) just slightly over a month before announcing his presidential candidacy, sparking considerable debate.

During a live broadcast, his fellow contender, Ng Kok Song, who formerly served as the Chief Investment Officer of GIC, openly questioned Mr Tharman’s rapid transition to a presidential bid shortly after leaving his party and government.

Dr Felix Tan suggests that in the future, political leaders aspiring to run for the presidency should not only resign from their parties but also adhere to a mandatory waiting period of at least five years before entering the race.

Cherian George and Kevin Y.L. Tan: “illogical ” to raise the corporate threshold in 2016

Indeed, the apprehension regarding the stringent eligibility criteria and concerns about fairness in presidential candidacy requirements are not limited to political analysts interviewed by Singapore’s mainstream media.

Prior to PE2023, CCherian George, a Professor of media studies at Hong Kong Baptist University, and Kevin Y.L. Tan, an Adjunct Professor at both the Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore and the NTU’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), brought attention to the challenges posed by the qualification criteria for candidates vying for the Singaporean Presidency.

In their article titled “Why Singapore’s Next Elected President Should be One of its Last,” the scholars discussed the relevance of the current presidential election system in Singapore and floated the idea of returning to an appointed President, emphasizing the symbolic and unifying role of the office.

They highlighted that businessman George Goh appeared to be pursuing the “deliberative track” for qualification, which requires candidates to satisfy the PEC that their experience and abilities are comparable to those of a typical company’s chief executive with shareholder equity of at least S$500 million.

Mr Goh cobbles together a suite of companies under his management to meet the S$500m threshold.

The article also underscored the disparities between the eligibility criteria for candidates from the public and private sectors, serving as proxies for evaluating a candidate’s experience in handling complex financial matters.

“It is hard to see what financial experience the Chairman of the Public Service Commission or for that matter, the Chief Justice has, when compared to a Minister or a corporate chief.”

“The raising of the corporate threshold in 2016 is thus illogical and serves little purpose other than to simply reduce the number of potentially eligible candidates.”

The article also touches upon the issue of candidates’ independence from political parties, particularly the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).

It mentions that candidates are expected to be non-partisan and independent, and it questions how government-backed candidates can demonstrate their independence given their previous affiliations.

The Workers’ Party advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency

It comes as no surprise that Singapore’s alternative party, the Workers’ Party, reaffirmed its stance on 30 August, asserting that they believe the existing qualifying criteria for presidential candidates are skewed in favour of those approved by the People’s Action Party (PAP).

They argue that the current format of the elected presidency (EP) undermines the principles of parliamentary democracy.

“It also serves as an unnecessary source of gridlock – one that could potentially cripple a non-PAP government within its first term – and is an alternative power centre that could lead to political impasses.”

Consistently, the Workers’ Party has been vocal about its objection to the elected presidency and has consistently called for its abolition.

Instead, they advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency, a position they have maintained for over three decades.

Continue Reading

Trending