On 29 June 2005, India and Singapore signed the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (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.
Movement of Natural Persons
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.
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?
Indian companies try to exploit CECA loophole
After CECA was signed, some of the Indian IT companies set-up in Singapore tried to exploit the “intra-corporate transferee” loophole so as to get more Indian IT workers to work here. They would hire them in India and then “transfer” them to their Singapore subsidiaries to work, without the need to hire any Singaporeans.
India unhappy with Singapore
By 2017, thanks to CECA, large number of Indian professionals especially those in IT sector were moved into Singapore as “intra-corporate transferees”, since CECA did not set any quotas. Few Singaporeans, if any, were hired.
Many Singaporean PMETs started filing complaints of discrimination to the Manpower Ministry through the Fair Consideration Framework. The Singapore government was forced to slow down the approvals of Indian professionals to work here.
“This (visa problem) has been lingering for a while but since early-2016, visas are down to a trickle. All Indian companies have received communication on fair consideration, which basically means hiring local people,” the president of Nasscom, the IT association of India, complained.
In retaliation, the Indian government decided against expanding the scope of goods where import duties for Singapore goods would be cut unless the concerns of Indian industry are addressed, the Times of India reported.
In particular, the Indian government is against Singapore using the “fair consideration framework” to regulate the employment of Indian professionals in Singapore. “They (Singapore) are doing it despite the CECA clearly stating that there will be no ENT (economic needs test) or quotas on agreed services. This is a violation of the agreement,” warned an Indian official.
Obviously, when Heng negotiated CECA with India prior to 2005, he had not foreseen all these issues facing Singaporean PMETs. Perhaps he cared more if GIC and Temasek could invest freely in India or if DBS could open more branches there?
Nevertheless, Heng was confirmed to be appointed DPM of Singapore on May Day. Opposition member Lim Tean has this to say to Heng, the current PM-in-waiting, “Heng Swee Keat should explain his role in CECA, which cost Singaporeans jobs! What is the benefit to Singapore of CECA?”
Why Jovina Choi is now Singapore’s public enemy number one
Posted by temasektimes on February 3, 2019
She embodies every bit of characteristic that we all hate in a human being:
1. Ignorance. Holier-than-thou attitude
“Because it’s clear you’re out to cheat money”
She is not aware that drivers don’t make money from passing through an ERP gantry, yet she’s so confident that that is what the driver is doing and insisting she’s right.
2. Irresponsible. Everything is everybody else’s fault attitude
“Because you know I am a layperson and I don’t know the route”
She expects every driver to know every road very well. And essentially she pushed all responsibility of her misfortune (in this case, having to pay for ERP) to the driver when she, as a person who ought to be familiar with the route, herself doesn’t know the way.
3. Hypocrisy. Double standards
“You do not have the right to video me”
This said, while she herself attempted (but allegedly failed) to film the driver
4. Exaggeration. Drama queen
“He is taking me to the Toa Payoh police station, and I think that he is a very rogue and dangerous person”
Don’t seem to hear any tyre skidding or any other surrounding cars horning.
5. Overcalculative.
“And I have to pay the extra cost from Toa Payoh all the way to City Hall”
This was said when she just declared herself to be in a danger situation and yet she’s also equally worried about the extra cost she’ll have to incur for her to get from the police station to her intended destination. Which is more important to her? Additional ~$15 cost or her safety? Clearly her priorities are off
6. Quick to accuse. Possibly due to poor upbringing.
She pretends to call someone of authority to try to frighten the driver. Person is very likely just her mom. The person on the phone uses threatening words like “going to Court“, “You have no right to take her hostage” “You are causing her to lose her freedom” etc without first hearing the full story. Do note that these are all very serious charges and can get the driver into trouble.
Clearly this pig face was brought up in an over protected environment, which brings me back to point 2: Irresponsible, everything is everybody’s fault.
7. Manipulative. Liar. Playing victim
“Sir can you help me.. This driver is trying to take hostage of me” in a damsel in distressed voice.
The word hostage was never used until the woman on the phone started introducing it. So who implanted the idea of hostage? The person on the phone!
8. Overbearing. The world revolves around her
“No.. no you’re listening to his point of view”
Only her point of view matters.
9. Poor control of emotions.
So this is the epic part. She tries to escape. A simple flick of the door unlock lever would have unlocked the door, but she went freaky and shouted “he locked the door! he locked the door! He’s taking hostage of me, unlock the door now!!” while the door opens…
10. Incoherent. Playing the race card.
When all else is lost, she throws out a very pathetic card.
Source: Hardwarezone Forum
Posted in Commentary, Opinion | Tagged: Go-Jek kidnap, Jovina Choi, Singapore Academy of Law | 53 Comments »