Facebook post by Kok Ming Cheang: Is CECA a Pandora Box that cannot be opened?

[The metaphor of Pandora Box originated from a story in Ancient Greece about a beautiful and happy girl named Pandora, who received a wedding gift in a box 

that must never be opened. As the story went, she opened the box out of curiosity and released death, evil and misery into the world. In modern language, it refers to the source of endless complications or trouble if the box is opened.]

Is CECA a Pandora Box that the government fears to open? 

CECA (Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement) is a FTA signed between India and Singapore in 2005. Out of the 26 FTAs that Singapore has signed with foreign countries, CECA is the most contentious of all. Few people knew or understood CECA until quite recently. But there was increasing unhappiness as the foreign population grows with one nationality becoming more prominent in Changi Business Park, Marina Bay Sand Financial Centre and on public transport. They are clearly here for work and competing for the same jobs with Singaporeans in professional and non-professional levels. The concerns of Singaporeans being displaced by foreigners are real and the government has not released specific statistics to disprove it. In the ministerial statements released in Parliament on 6Jul, the government went as far as telling us that from 2005 to 2020, local PMEs (professionals, managers, executives, dropping out the technicians), grew by 380,000 compared with 112,000 for EP (Employment Pass) holders, they stopped short of giving us a breakdown of Singaporeans and PRs (Permanent Residents) under the category of local PMEs. As PRs are foreigners, it isn’t possible to determine how many Singaporeans are employed as local PMEs 

in 2020 while we know there are 112,000 foreigners are EP holders. Please note that PRs are not required to apply for any work passes to work here. So, the mystery remains over the number of Singaporeans who are still working as PMEs and the number who have been displaced. 

This is the Pandora Box that is kept shut for nearly 20 years. 

The influx of foreigners started even before the signing of CECA but it is unfortunate that this free-trade-agreement has become the target of discontentment over Singaporean PMETs’ loss of jobs and livelihoods. Chapter 9 of the agreement provides for “movement of natural persons” and a list of 127 professions that Indian nationals can apply. It does not mean they have “unfettered” entry, as the government insisted.,

Instead of dealing with the key issues of CECA and trying to understand the reasons for Singaporeans’ concern, two ministers used the Parliament in July to launch an attack on PSP for spreading falsehoods, asserting that under CECA, intra-corporate transferees do not have “unfettered access to our labour market,” and stirring up emotions against a particular nationality. Clearly, the two ministerial statements by Health Minister Ong Ye Kung and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng was a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from CECA and Singaporean PMETs’ loss of jobs to foreigners. 

In standard old-fashioned way, the two ministers tried very hard to explain the main problems away, as they had in the past because Singaporeans are generally obedient and unquestioning. Mr Ong said “ foreigners bear the brunt of job losses in a downturn” with a reduction of about 21,000 EP holders and 25,800 S Pass holders from April last year to April this year. And even better, “local employment has been stable. The unemployment rate for local PMEs in June last year was 2.9 per cent.” This means that there is little or no basis for complaints by Singaporean PMETs losing jobs to foreigners when the EPs and SPs themselves are losing jobs in an economic downturn and the low unemployment rate means few local PMEs  are unemployed (quietly ignoring that the fact that PRs are counted together with Singaporeans.)

There is also a concern that the intra-corporate transferees came into Singapore via the CECA route. Manpower Minister told Parliament that “ there were 4200 intra-corporate transferees (ICTs)  working in Singapore last year, a number that has remained consistently small.” To allay the fear that CECA was the cause of the problem, “about 500 of these foreign employees brought in from the overseas offices of MNCs are from India.” As this number of ICTs is so small to have caused a serious problem to our employment market, why not disclose the total number of Indian professionals who entered Singapore after 2005 instead of just revealing a one-year figure? This number is “out of 177,000 EP holders in Singapore.” 

How did the rest of the 177,000 EP holders come in if not from CECA? Are Singapore’s immigration regulations too welcoming of foreigners? What is the nationality breakdown of these EP holders? Is this the Pandora Box that cannot be opened? 

Even in Parliament, the frequent use of diversion tactics by ministers is troubling. Instead of focusing on matters that worry the Singaporeans, Dr Tan reminded us that “Singaporeans are pragmatic, and understand that we need to remain open to global talent” while acknowledging Singaporeans’ worry that the “ the growth in EP holders has come at the expense of locals, and concerned about discrimination against local job seekers and workers.” Does this mean Singaporeans should accept a growing foreign worker population because they are regarded as having talent and its fine to be even being displaced by them because the locals are judged as untalented and mismatched? For Singaporeans who grew up and educated under a world-class education system, this is a painful equation. 

In the past, WP MPs like Pritam Singh, Leon Perera and Gerald Giam did ask for data in Parliament, pertaining to foreign employment but not really getting satisfactory answers. On 26 Jul in Parliament, Gerald Giam asked Education Minister Chan Chun Sing if Singapore’s local universities have enough computer science degree places to meet demand of IT industry, in response to Manpower Minister’s statement that IT sector alone has 6000 jobs unfilled. Mr Chan’s answer was complete as the statistics he provided supported the government’s assertion that Singapore required foreigners to meet the demands of employers. The government would evade or give a vague reply if the answers exposed their weakness or something that is deemed sensitive. Hence, the Pandora Box has remained shut for CECA as till today, the Manpower Minister has not disclosed the full number of Singaporean PMETs who have been displaced by foreigners in the last 15 to 20 years. We sure have a serious problem with the lack of transparency in governance. 

However, I am convinced the politicians and the government are fully aware of the plight of Singaporean PMETs and the unfair competition and discriminations they faced at the workplace. 

Our 50-year old government is active and fully capable of fixing any problems in the economy or society (including political opponents), if they want to. If not, there will be endless stream of ideas and news reports (of standard narratives) but no specific reports of result. This strategy has served the government very well because Singaporeans are too busy (life’s hard) to follow up on the outcome of government statements and then forgotten until the next General Election. 

The most visible actions taken by the government I have noted are the increases of salary thresholds for EP holders from $3,900 to $4,500  from 1 Sep 2020 and for S Pass holders from $2,300 to  $2,400 in 2019 and to $2,500 from 1 Oct 2020. Putting a few hundred companies on a watchlist and restricting their application privileges and banning several foreigners with fake qualifications who have already worked in Singapore for several years, all seemed too mild for Singaporean PMETs who were unfairly treated in the employment market.

Just going back to 2017, I have tracked a list of media headlines to show the government is aware of the concerns of Singaporean PMETs, and the competition from foreigners in local market but without solid remedial actions taken, apart from tweaking the salary ceilings of EPs and SPs. 

A sample (and not exhaustive) list of news headlines is shown below to track what the government including NTUC said about looking after the Singaporean PMETs’ interests over a 5-year period:

* Today 22/5/2017: Lack of talent sees jobs go a-begging in ICT sector.

* ST 28/7/2017: New grant to help PMETs get back into workforce.

* ST 30/9/2017: Fair-hiring policy ‘has led to rise in number of local PMETs’.

* ST 11/01/2018: Support scheme helps most job-seeking PMETs restart careers.

* ST 08/02/2018: More vacancies for PMETs even as job openings shrink. 

* ST 06/03/2018: Rules on employing foreigners to be tightened. 

* ST 20/03/2019: More jobs vacancies last year, with more PMET positions.

* ST 05/03/2019: Parliament: Stiffer salary rules for companies to hire foreign workers.

* ST 23/11/2019: Hiring, promoting fairly can reduce locals’ anxieties: Josephine Teo. 

* ST 27/02/2020: Budget debate: Preserving local jobs a key priority, says Manpower Minister Josephine Teo. 

* ST 28/08/2020: Job rules tightened so S’poreans have more access to vacancies.

* ST 28/08/2020: NTUC task force to champion protection of local PMEs. 

* ST: 18/02/2021: Reskilling workers key as Jobs Support Scheme tapers off

* ST 25/02/2021: Labour MP Patrick Tay urged the government to consider implementing anti-discrimination legislation.

* ST 27/07/2021: New Tripartite Committee to ensure workplace fairness (Manpower Minister)

Similarly, a host of new job opportunities and new skill training and job-searching programs have been created and implemented (based on media reports extracted from ST in 2017-2021), which painted a rosy picture of job opportunities for Singaporeans and the help the government was offering:

* Career Support Program

* Workforce Singapore’s Professional Conversion Program

* 10,000 find jobs via Workforce S’pore’s career matching services 

* Implementation of Fair Consideration Framework

* Human Capital Partnership Program

* Lean Enterprise Development Scheme 

* ‘Digital district’ in Punggol to create 28,000 tech jobs 

* 20,500 jobs, traineeships, other opportunities on offer in infocomm sector

* >15,000 workers who have been placed in public sector or government-funded short-term Covid-19 roles since the start of the pandemic

* SGUnited and Skills Package 

* SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Program 

* SGUnited Jobs and Skills Centre

* 47,000 locals placed in jobs in 6 months, exceeding National Jobs Council target

* Job Support Scheme

* Partnership of MAS and Institute of Banking and Finance to create jobs and progression opportunities for Singaporeans 

* Institute of Banking and Finance Singapore’s Technology in Finance Immersion Program

* Capability Transfer Program

* Enhanced Training Package

* IBM to hire and train 300 S’poreans over next 4 years

* 6,400 jobs, training roles available in manufacturing 

* Sustainability sector to offer 55,000new jobs in next 10 years

* 1,000 traineeships, attachments on offer in growing maritime sector

* MyCareersFuture.sg portal

* On-demand mobile centres for PMEs

* NTUC council matches over 32,000 with jobs

* SkillsFuture Work Study Program 

* SkillsFuture Singapore (estab 2015)

With such an extensive job menu for Singaporeans, it is difficult to fault the government for not doing enough. However, the actual outcome or result of the multifarious training schemes and employment programs is a different matter. 

With the government so actively expressing their concern for Singaporeans PMETs, telling employers to practise fair employment policies, promoting support of Singaporean PMETs and pouring in huge resources to train and re-skill them, why is the “ elephant in the room” ignored even though their words and actions indicate Singaporean PMETs indeed were displaced, driving many to do sub-normal jobs? 

Are the multifarious training and up-skilling programs, some under the umbrella of SkillsFuture Singapore, really successful in uplifting the skill level of Singapore’s workforce to compete with the thousands of foreigners from South Asian countries? 

Assuming that the training schemes have helped the Singaporean PMETs in acquiring new skills in demand to compete with the foreigners, there is no need to guard CECA as a Pandora Box. 

Are the displaced PMETs offered lowly-paid jobs, even after attending the training courses, which impacted their livelihoods?

When NCMP Leong Mun Wai called in Parliament in Feb 2021, for $1200 monthly levy on EP holders (to level the competition), the government responded harshly, that “it signaled how his PSP favoured Singapore closing up instead of welcoming global companies and talent.”

Mr Leong only spoke up for Singaporean PMETs’ loss of jobs and discrimination but probably ran against the vein in Parliament, he was treated, as in a Japanese proverb: “The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.”

Law Minister Mr Shanmugam’s challenge to Mr Leong to file a motion to debate CECA in Parliament, has heightened the heat though this free trade agreement may not be the only source of problem. 

Besides the routine economic

data that CECA helped trade and services with India, to grow grow from S$20b in 2005 to S$38b in 2019, Singaporeans want to know how they have benefited in new jobs created compared with the number of Singapore jobs taken by Indian nationals. 

Economic Times of India (on 15 Aug 2021), reported the closer ties between India and Singapore with over 8000 Indian companies registered in Singapore and over 440 Singapore companies in India. How many Singaporeans (excluding Indian PRs) have these Indian companies employed in Singapore compared with the number of Indian professionals they employed here? Of the 440 Singapore companies in India, how many of their employees are Singaporeans? But Singapore is the top foreign investor in India, ahead of USA, in the last two years. 

ST 29/11/3020 reported that DBS injected S$452m to rescue the ailing Chennai-based Lakshmi Vilas bank, on the proposal of India’s central bank. Why would DBS undertake such an investment into a foreign bank “struggling with financial decline and in red ink for the past three years?” Would DBS even invest in a loss-making Indian bank without CECA?

Both Indian conglomerates, TATA and InfoSys have business operations in Singapore. Can they extend a helping hand by employing displaced Singaporean PMETs and train them for suitable jobs in their companies instead of rejecting local applicants due to skills-mismatch? 

ST 2May 2017 carried a Bloomberg report from Bangalore which said: “India’s InfoSys said it plans to hire 10,000 American employees in the next two years, following criticism from the Trump administration that the company and other outsourcing firms are unfairly taking jobs away from US workers.”

“The moves come after India’s outsourcing firms have come under fierce attacks for using foreign workers in place of American employees.”

“Last month, President D Trump signed an executive order aimed at overhauling the work visa programs that InfoSys and other firms use to bring overseas workers into US.”

The above sounded familiar as Singaporeans too faced the same problem of losing jobs to Indian professionals but the government, instead of quickly protecting Singaporean PMETs first, spent time and public resources to explain that foreigners are required to complement the Singapore workforce and helped create good jobs for Singaporeans. 

In Singapore, the government operated differently; plenty of story-telling and assurances, all accurately reported in the public media, but nothing much happens afterwards, though the problems faced by Singaporean PMETs, can be traced back to at least 15 years. Many public statements were either repeated or soon forgotten. The Singaporean PMETs themselves ought to take some blame too for keeping silent. No wonder the Pandora Box of CECA can remain shut for so long. 

In the Tripartite Partnership, which Singapore is proud of, the employers are a very strong partner over the workers. The Singapore Business Federation (SBF) made clear that “Singapore cannot afford to close borders completely to foreign workers,” when MOM announced in May 2021 to stop accepting new entry applications for work pass holders from

higher-risk countries or regions, in response to the emergence of new virus variants but gave a leeway for workers for key strategic projects and infrastructural works. 

Neither did the government nor the NTUC respond to SBF’s statement that the insufficient manpower will also shake investors’ confidence in Singapore and its attractiveness as a business destination. “Should investors decide to exit Singapore as a result, this will mean job losses for Singaporeans.” Such statements are tantamount to a threat. 

In this CECA episode, we don’t see swift actions taken by the government and the NTUC leadership to address the concerns of Singaporean PMETs. Instead, the political leaders continue to deliver their often-repeated narratives like “Endless opportunities for S’pore,” by DPM Heng Swee Keat and “Globalization has benefited everyone in S’pore,” said PM. 

To cap it all, PM Lee in his National Day 2021 message, declared: “Anxieties over foreign work pass holders being addressed,” and the good news that policies are to be adjusted. He was addressing a real problem faced by Singaporeans with the huge influx of foreigners over 15 years. 

Again, in typical PAP government tactic, to put Singaporeans on hold, DPM Heng Swee Keat, in a forum on shaping the future of Singapore, provided the flip side of the Singapore pancake: Not possible to ‘bubble wrap’ Singapore workers from foreign competition. (ST14/08/21)

Putting these two well-orchestrated government statements together, and PM’s elaboration that “if we do this well, we can continue to welcome foreign workers and new immigrants, as we must,” the Pandora Box of CECA will remain closed as probably more Singaporean PMETs will be displaced and downgraded but their numbers will remain a mystery.

With Singapore’s well -educated workforce and huge national reserves, why is our country so lacking in options but to be overly- dependent on foreign manpower? 

Despite all the sound and fury, Singapore was ranked 9th in world talent, according to the Swiss business school Institute for Management Development (IMD) in 2020, below Switzerland, Denmark, Luxembourg, Iceland, Sweden, Austria, Norway, Canada which aren’t countries with big populations. 

Is the government’s reluctance to open the Pandora Box of Ceca hurting Singaporeans’ long-term interest in jobs and livelihoods? 

Why is Singapore’s well-educated wiorkforce not good enough compared with the foreigners from third world countries? 

There must be secrets in the Pandora Box of CECA that we ought to know. 

https://www.facebook.com/1390029023/posts/10219534186050503/?d=n

https://www.facebook.com/100000550801674/posts/4982880788406899/?d=n

Kok Ming Cheang