This Is Why Singaporeans Will Not Be Protected In Our Jobs By The Government

The government has always told us that Singapore shouldn’t introduce laws to hold companies accountable, right? The government had kept saying that we should “convince” companies to be “fair”, because “laws” might be too harsh. Even the recently-introduced ‘Fair Consideration Framework’ isn’t a new law or policy and there is no legal bite or teeth in this “framework” if companies flout this “framework”.

Do you know why this is the case? Thanks to Active Citizenry on Facebook who unearthed the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) Between The Republic Of India And The Republic Of Singapore, I managed to do more research to find out why. (You can also add Active Citizenry on your Facebook here.)

Do you know that the reason why Singapore cannot introduce any laws or policies to protect the employment of Singaporeans is because that in the CECA, there is a clause which prohibits this? It is said in the CECA that both India and Singapore should not “require labour market testing” (Chart 1). In other words, labour movement between countries is “free and easy”.

photo 1 (6)

Chart 1

Maybe you might be thinking that – but this clause most probably exists across all of India’s CECA with the other countries.

So, I looked the the agreement with Malaysia. But Malaysia’s agreement doesn’t have a clause like this! It also said that for both countries, the allowance of applicants entering and extending their stay in the country should be “in accordance with domestic laws and regulations (Chart 2). Thus in the agreement with Malaysia, at least Malaysians are given the due respect in the eyes of the law.

photo 1 (9)

Chart 2

So, I thought I would look at another agreement – I looked at the agreement between India and South Korea. Again, there is no such clause that prevents both countries from being able to “require labour market testing” (Chart 3). Again, the South Koreans are protected by their government.

photo 1 (7)

Chart 3

But if you look back at the CECA between India and Singapore again, not only does the CECA makes it easy for anyone to come into Singapore without adequate “testing”, their “spouses or dependents” are allowed to do so as well. In the CECA between India and Singapore, the countries are expected to allow “spouses or dependents … the right to work as managers, executives or specialists (and) … they shall not be barred by the Party (both countries) granting them the right to work from taking up employment … on the ground that they as the accompanying spouses or dependents or already employed” in the same job role specialisations (Chart 4).

photo 2 (6)

Chart 4

So, again I compared Singapore’s agreement with Malaysia’s. And again, Malaysia’s CECA had more accountability towards its people and the laws of the country – it stated clearly that the granting of the “spouses and dependents” to work should be “in accordance with that (country’s) domestic laws” (Chart 5).

photo 4 (2)

Chart 5

And again, South Korea’s agreement also ensured that the laws of its countries are respected and its citizens are protected – it said the same thing: “the spouse or the dependent (has to comply) with immigration measures” (Chart 6).

photo 2 (7)

Chart 6

So, why does Singapore make it so damn easy for anyone to come into Singapore, when the other countries would at least ensure that their laws would protect the employability of their citizens, and ensure that even as they enter into agreements with other countries, that other countries also respect their laws? Why can’t Singapore do the same?

I looked at another article on the evaluation between the India and Singapore CECA, and inside, it said that in order for Singapore to “benefit from this relaxed visa regime” to allow for a more liberal movement of labour on both sides, “Singapore must accept Indian professional qualifications in order to benefit” (Chart 7). This explains why that on top of the lax allowance of anyone to enter, the perception that lower standards, in terms of educational qualification, is being allowed into Singapore seems to be on the rise here.

photo 1 (8)

Chart 7

It is no wonder that it has been said that, “India is inclined to take up the CECA model in line with the Indo-Singapore experience wherever possible due to its potential gain in services sector” and that “the Indo-Singapore CECA has been the most successful model agreement, which the Indian negotiators may refer to from time to time during future negotiations” because “the agreement provides for investment liberalization commitments on the part of India on a positive list basis” (Chart 8).

photo 4 (3)

Chart 8

Indeed, it has been reported that the “CECA dictates that the government in Singapore should provide additional protection to Indian employees as the countries agreed on a partnership which would protect its migrants”. Isn’t it ironic that in the CECA that the Singapore government signs with India, the Singapore government would wittingly sign away the rights of Singaporeans but are expected to protect the citizens of another country? Where is the allegiance of the PAP government? The situation has exacerbated so much so that the Singapore government has allowed Singapore to be held ransom such that India would be as much as “irked” that tightening of the Employment Pass Framework “does not give India a preferential treatment incorporated in the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement“. What that had got into the PAP government’s head to allow for such an agreement is beyond anyone’s logical understanding.

But do you know that not all agreements that the Singapore government signed with the other countries would sell away Singaporeans’ rights so easily? If you look at the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) that Singapore had signed with the US, it includes a lot more clauses which protect labour rights. So, the question is – if the Singapore government has shown that it’s capable of protecting Singaporeans (at least (just) in writing, mind you), then why did it allow all hell to break loose with the CECA with India?

In a report of the US-Singapore FTA after a three-year period, it was said that both the US and Singapore “are to strive to ensure that their domestic laws provide for labor standards consistent with internationally recognized labor principles”. Apparently, Singapore “has ratified 24 ILO Conventions” which also requires Singapore to allow for “collective bargaining, and equal remuneration” (Chart 9). Sounds good, right?

But do you even feel that you have “the right to organize and bargain collectively”, even as the US-Singapore FTA had mandated? Indeed, it has been advocated by the  Citizens Trade Campaign (CTC) (a national coalition of environmental, labor, consumer, family farm, religious, and other civil society groups in the US) that the US-Singapore FTA is “dangerous” because it is inadequate, as the “US-Singapore FTA is contingent only that Singapore enforce its existing labor laws regardless of their adequacy”. Also, the CTC recognises that this FTA, “sets up a mechanism to abuse Singaporean workers and drive down wages and working conditions in the US.” Even the civil rights group in the US had to speak up for the Singaporeans, who are unaware of how the Singaporean government had turned their backs on us.

photo 2 (8)

Chart 9

In fact, the US-Singapore FTA had also mentioned how both countries should maintain “acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages (and) hours of work” (Chart 10). But what minimum wages? What acceptable “hours of work”? By now, you would know that there are 90% of countries in the world which already have minimum wages and Singapore is one of the very few countries which still does not have minimum wages. At the same, Singapore works the longest hours in the world. What “acceptable conditions”?

So, when you read further, you realise that the Singapore government had described “minimum wage” as “wage guidelines issued by the National Wages Council (‘NWC’) and gazetted under the Employment Act. Wait, even this can be called “minimum wage” (??) and the US government allowed this agreement to go through?

photo 3 (6)

Chart 10

But do you know what “minimum wage” the NWC had recommended? This is what the NWC had recommended: “The NWC recommends that real wage increases should be in line with productivity growth over the long term” (Chart 11). What “minimum wage” is this??

photo 4 (4)

Chart 11

And when you read further, the NWC had also recommended that “companies employing workers earning a basic monthly salary of up to $1,000 grant these workers a built-in wage increase of at least $60” (Chart 12). What this means is that if you earn $600, the NWC recommends that you should get $660. So, if you earn a lower amount, say $400, you would get $460. There is effectively no “minimum wage”!

What’s worse is that the NWC then further said that “as of December 2012, almost 6 in 10 of private establishments gave wage increases to their employees”, which means that there were more than 40% of companies which did not give their employees any wage increases! Which means that this “pseudo minimum wage” didn’t even get to more than 40% of the low-wage workers in Singapore!

photo 5 (2)

Chart 12

So now, do you know why Singaporeans will never be protected under the PAP government in our jobs?

But who actually benefits from the CECA?

Take a look at Chart 13.

photo 1 (22)

photo 2 (24)

Chart 13

And Chart 14.

photo 3 (17)

photo 4 (13)

Chart 14

In short, Singaporeans are not the ones benefiting from the CECAs and FTAs.

Finally, do you remember Deputy Prime Minister saying that, “It may not be in our interest to provide a detailed breakdown of the numbers of workers and countries of origin of workers in each industry… I think Members understand that there may be some sensitivities with regard to this.” (Chart 15)

This Is Why Singaporeans Will Not Be Protected In Our Jobs By The Government_edited

Chart 15

But the question is – whose interest is this not in, and so, why would the Members of Parliament understand these sensitivities? And why not, right? So, now, do you know why he said this?

If so, if the PAP government is not protecting the Singaporean worker, then who is the government protecting? Or what?

For goodness sake, there are 1 billion people in India. If the PAP government doesn’t already understand this, India is the country with the second largest population of 1 billion in the world and Singapore happens to be one of the smallest countries in the world! Seen in this light, it would’t take a 8-year old to understand how such an overly porous labour and border policy in these agreements is completely unsound, let alone that for a PAP minister to understand. What was the PAP thinking, or actually, what were they not thinking??

I read a comment on another article, where someone said, “it’s a sell out (of Singaporeans)!” I think he sums it up just nicely. There is no other way to say it – we’ve been had.

38 comments

  1. Anonymous

    I’m sorry but you are really annoying me. I know you meant well and you must have done a lot of research to publish this article but i’m afraid you are always missing the point. The clause in CECA is a hygiene clause that requires non-discrimination of foreign workforce seeking employment, and that just means that Indian residents will go through the same evaluation process at MOM, and not find it more difficult to seek employment here.

    And please read up more on the value of FTAs to Singapore – more often than not, it benefits Singapore more than the treaty country – we get access to a bigger market than they do in SG. So before you complain about our FTA, try to understand the big picture.

      • Dex

        Looking at only the Malaysian one, you have clearly taken the highlighted words out of context.
        It states “Any fees imposed … shall be reasonable and in accordance with domestic law and regulations”.
        The highlighted words apply to fees, not conditions for entry.
        Please amend your sentence which says “It also said that for both countries, the allowance of applicants entering and extending their stay in the country should be “in accordance with domestic laws and regulations (Chart 2).”

    • Citizen

      Instead of being annoyed why don’t you set out in detail the FTAs that , to use your words. benefit us more than the treaty country? I will give you one example where such sentiments are nothing but hot air. In the FTA with the US we agree to open up our legal services sector with corresponding rights. Are you seriously suggesting that our law firms have the capacity to take advantage of that? And the Amercans have given us something for less?

    • Ho Wye Ming

      …sure, understand the big picture but talk to the little guy who has lost his job and has a family to support. Ridiculous!

    • Rick Zi

      Benefits Singapore corporates/GLCs or Singaporeans?!?
      There are 200+k indian nationals working in SG via this CECA ALL WITHOUT S-/E- or Workers pass.
      U need to get ur perspective right!!

  2. chua c h

    The Heart Truths schrieb am 1:26 Montag, 11.November 2013: WordPress.com Roy Ngerng posted: “The government has always told us that Singapore shouldn’t introduce laws to hold companies accountable, right? The government had kept saying that we should “convince” companies to be “fair”, because “laws” might be too harsh. Even the recently-introduce”

  3. Top End

    Anonymous wrote…. “And please read up more on the value of FTAs to Singapore – more often than not, it benefits Singapore more than the treaty country – we get access to a bigger market than they do in SG. So before you complain about our FTA, try to understand the big picture.”

    …benefits Singapore? WHO in Singapore?
    I think you hit the nail on the head here. Its all about the $$$ then.

    BTW what BIG picture are you going on about? And at whose expense (my guess is us citizens) just to attain this BIG picture? Care to elaborate?

  4. Ho Wye Ming

    …I don’t know much about the details but this sounds like a sellout- selling out our own citizens for I don’t know what benefits- treacherous! Why don’t the government come clean on this. How long are they going to hide? Afraid that they will be called stupid? …

  5. Ginger

    the indian agreement is just one aspect of sporeans not being protected in their jobs. there’s a lot more to workers lack of protection than the indian agreement. so a more accurate headline for this piece would be Getting to the bottom of that (questionable) Indian agreement, or some such.
    while on the topic, one wonders about the agreement/s with china.
    and other countries besides Malaysia.

  6. Tan

    Roy,

    I’m not legally trained, but I don’t think it says what people think it says. The prohibition is on such regulatory requirements as conditions for *temporary entry*. So it’s more like an express temporary visa clause, not a “laissez faire labour market” clause. This is indeed something other countries’ agreements don’t have, but it’s not something we should be worried about. I’m afraid you are blowing this out of proportion.

    If it were the latter sort, a “free employment” clause, then the wording would be “as a condition for employment” or “as a condition for employment visas” instead.

    • J

      Appreciate the effort put into this article, but agreed that it’s simply blowing things out of proportion. In what way is the Singapore agreement’s clause “subject to its relevant licensing, administrative and registration requirements” different in fact from “in accordance with that Party’s domestic laws” as written in the Malaysian letter?
      Throughout the letter, this “subject to relevant licensing, administrative and registration requirements” clause is repeated again and again.
      Indeed, despite this agreement, Indian temporary workers are and should be governed by the S Pass, E Pass, and other similar standards. To say these frameworks are inadequate may be a point for discussion. To say this agreement allows the Indian workers to circumvent the existing standards would be shocking if it were true. But to say that there is no requirements preventing Indian workers from working in Singapore??? That’s stretching it.

  7. michelle

    Everyone should share this article. I am going to let my whole group of 500 friends know how the PAP betray Singaporeans. Please share.

  8. Muthu Balakrishnan

    Anonymous, your comments my toes laugh. I’m working in a company where many of the Senior and Middle Management are Non-Resident Indians. At least 60% of the organization is made up of foreigners with Indians accounting for 85% of that.

    Whb

  9. Muthu Balakrishnan

    You say that FTA clause is a hygiene clause? Then how did we come to the stage in which we have half a million Indian PMETS in Singapore? What kind of fool thinks that the MOM has a stringent and implementable policy in allowing who to come in and who not to??

  10. Glenn

    What a terrible sellout of singaporeans by the elitist parasites! Whoever negotiated this agreement for singapore should be made to resign immediately…. But instead they have been paying themselves millions a year despite their incompetence.

  11. Citizen

    J. Did Roy blow things out of proportion? You seem to forget that when the government announced the revamp of the work passes the first reaction was from the Indian government – warning us that we may be in breach of the FTA. You need any more convincing that the agreement will prevent the government from protecting our workers as Roy said? One of George Yeo’s main claim to fame was the number of FTAs he negotiated and signed. He clearly did not envisage the social and economic havoc they caused. Full of cleverness and little wisdom – punching above our weight. etc The story of the ant boasting that it raped the elephant.

  12. Pingback: Daily SG: 12 Nov 2013 | The Singapore Daily
  13. Thomas Kennedy

    First and foremost, sincere apologies to all Singaporeans who have been affected by discrimination or bad treatment from Indians. However, all of you will also know that the Singapore government through its tightening on employment of foreigners, Fair Employment policy announced recently and through several other measures is addressing this issue proactively – which means Singaporeans will not lose out anymore.

    Having said that I strongly condemn the author of this article for cleverly manipulating the agreement to portray its in favour of India.

    I beg to differ – from the beginning, Singapore has always ensured that it stood to gain through the FTAs it signed with others, even with the US and China. Till date, all of its FTAs have been drafted with a proactive approach.

    INDIA:
    a. 1 billion population (majority of which is below 35 yrs) with an average growth rate of 5%.
    b. Democracy and hence support for free-enterprise unlike China which has stifled the innovative and entrepreneurship of its “Naturally Active and Enterprising Chinese” who are a successful businesses and learned community the world over.

    Thus its a huge market. In today’s world its all about business. US-China, China-Indonesia, China-Malaysia, Singapore-Malaysia, Malaysia-Indonesia and even, India-China, despite their differences, are working towards a stronger relationship through commerce.

    Dear fellow Singaporeans, unfortunately in addition to the many internal pressures our leaders are faced with enormous competitive pressures from outside as well, which are beyond their control. I’ve listed a few below:

    a. Its position as a trans-shipment hub is increasingly being challenged by Malaysia and Thailand.
    b. Dubai, Bangkok and KL airports are competing heavily with Changi.
    c. Establishment of financial hub in KL and Shanghai. Even the government of India is contemplating a similar one at Mumbai.
    d. China and Vietnam are hell bent on creating a massive eco-system for Electronics & Semiconductor.
    e. India has planned to focus on Bio-Technology and Pharmaceuticals. Tts already strong in pharma area.
    f. Increasing pressures from countries like China, India, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia on companies to establish knowledge/R&D hubs, for their markets within their countries. Ask companies in Singapore – Malaysia has already started asking them for it.

    An example: Airbus building A320 for Asian markets in China despite the fact that Airplane Manufacturing industry is monopolised by Boeing and Airbus and customers have nowhere else to go. Canada’s Bombardier and Brazil’s Embraer have a long way to match them. What will happen to Singapore if others also start demanding similar set-ups in Finance, Electronics & Semicon, Pharma, Medical Equipments, Ship & Airplane Maintenance?

    Just as one of our ministers said, companies come here ‘cause it makes sense in terms of dollars not that they love Singapore.

    From its FTA with India, Singapore has gained in many ways. And just as many Indians and their businesses have come here, an equal number of businesses and Singaporeans are there on business. Most importantly, an increasing number of Indians use Singapore as a transit port en-route Australia, Far East and Americas and many others come here as tourists.

    When there were racist attacks on Indian students in Australia and flip-flop policies that discouraged Indian students from going to the UK, both Prime Ministers were forced to fly to New Delhi and market their countries. Do you want to put our Prime Minister in the same position considering the fact that he’s among the very few most respected world leaders of today?

    Let’s focus on Singapore’s positives:

    a. Government that is action oriented and a place which is corruption free and where things happen.
    b. Leaders who are clean, proactive and learned professionals, unlike just politicians in other countries.
    c. Best infrastructures in the world.
    d. Constantly innovating and developing city.
    e. Which other country subsidises skill development course like ours?
    f. Which other country has home ownership matching ours?

    Everyone makes mistakes but our leaders in order to save our economy took some decisions that though helped our country stay afloat caused its social fabric to strain. They, without denying it, accepted, apologised and are working towards correcting it.

    We’ve a resident population of just 3.8 million (of which only 3.3 are citizens) which is very small compared with other cities, let alone countries. 20 years down the lane we don’t even have a favourable demography.

    We don’t exist in a vacuum and with this small number, we are unattractive as a market. So our leaders and policy makers are focusing on keeping this country alive by other means, especially marketing Singapore as a knowledge hub, which means Singaporeans will stand to gain.

    The foreign population here has increased business especially for Singapore owned companies and has offered us incomes through taxes and home rentals. They are an asset and not liability as falsely portrayed by several ignorant people.

    In today’s open world, if Singaporeans, unmindful of the consequences post hate-filled comments on foreigners, won’t it affect the credibility of our leaders and businesses? Only a few other countries in the world have as many friends as Singapore so lets’ stand together and work towards a stronger Singapore.

    Please don’t make it difficult for our brands like Singapore Airlines, Charles & Keith, Breadtalk, Singtel, PSA and others who’s substantial income comes from outside.

    Sorry if I had offended anyone and Thanks.

    • Roy Ngerng

      Singaporeans know all of these.

      What Singaporeans want is transparency. If you are going to make an agreement that will sell Singaporeans out, let Singaporeans know and we will decide if we want to be sold out.

      • Thomas Kennedy

        Dear Roy:

        If you are really concerned about Singapore being sold-out, then study & research all FTAs signed by Singapore with all countries till date and analyse the pros and cons of each in an unbiased manner. Only after that will I agree whether India and Indians have gained an unfair advantage here. Till then DO NOT SINGLE OUT INDIA or INDIANS.

        I’m a Singaporean of Indian origin but being a new citizen, and having roots in India and educated there, am really fed-up with the discrimination and attitude of fellow Singaporeans towards my people, especially new citizens and PRs despite our skill, hard-work and contributions.

        We are here to contribute and collaborate towards building a stronger Singapore.

    • michelle

      Sorry, TL;DR. What is your point again? That cronies in Singapore stand to gain so we must support them in order that we can stay employed at a pittance and be eternally grateful to FTrash like you?

      • Thomas Kennedy

        Hi Michelle:

        Will you accept if our fellow Singaporeans who work overseas are referred to as Foreign Trash by the locals there? Or, if you are called such while working abroad (‘cause overseas stint is becoming unavoidable for us, Singaporeans)?

        I’m a Singaporean of Indian origin but being a new citizen, and having roots in India and educated there, am really fed-up with the discrimination and attitude of fellow Singaporeans towards my people, especially new citizens and PRs despite our skill, hard-work and contributions.

        Majority of us have had good English medium education, in good universities (recognised in both US and UK) and worked there in MNCs (US, Europe, Japanese, etc). We may not be the best but are no way inferior to native Singaporeans. Our hard-work is recognised and appreciated throughout the world so don’t be under the impression that we make our living here by breaking the rules – NO – we succeed by breaking our backs.

        I came here ‘cause my ancestors, till my great-grandfather lived in pre-independence Singapore-Malaya. But you can console yourself with the fact that the rate of emigration from India is slowing down ‘cause many from the younger generation want to settle down in India, close to their parents and also because of the positive demography, huge market and growing opportunities.

        So let’s stop fighting among ourselves and work with our leaders and government towards a stronger Singapore.

      • michelle

        I will never regard you as a Singaporean! Trash coming here talking big and grovel to the PAP government. As an outsider, you should learn to keep your mouth shut and observe why more and more Singaporeans want the PAP to be voted out. If I were to work overseas, I would keep my mouth shut instead of trying to interfere. You do as the Romes do. Don’t because you get a pink IC and think you are one of us. Because you are not and will never be. You are here only to milk our system. That is why you people will always be regarded as trash. Get loss!

      • Roy Ngerng

        Hi Thomas Kennedy,

        First, please let me apologise – I didn’t see your message and had not replied earlier.

        Please do allow me to clarify – It is not my intention to “single out India or Indians”. Please understand that I had highlighted the CECA between India and Singapore, because this is thus far the document that I could locate which illustrated the selling out of the Singapore government of Singaporeans.

        Do also understand that it is not my intention of putting India or Indians in negative light – it is not now and never will be, and this is a personal commitment I make to myself on the issue of nationalism and racism. Do note that in no where in my article did I wrong the Indian government or Indian nationals. I have placed the responsibility squarely on the Singapore government.

        It is not the role of the Indian government to protect the Singapore citizens. It is the role of the Indian government to protect its citizens. And in the context of the CECA, the Indian government has done an excellent job in this.

        However, the Singapore government had not adequately put in place measures to protect its citizens and has to be taken to task to.

        To all the readers, for those of you who have been following my blog and reading the articles on a regularly basis, you will know that I do not believe in holding discriminatory attitudes, and you would also know my stand on the issue of nationalism, which I have discussed several times. As someone who had faced discrimination on a regularly basis, I know how it feels like and it is not in my interest to subject someone to similar discrimination.

        Let me be very clear – the CECA is a reflection of the Singapore government’s neglect of its citizens. It is unfortunate that the agreement was with India, and might have placed India in a bad light. But it would be wrongful of Singaporeans to subject India or the Indian nationals to anger or ill-treatment, simply because of a flaw in governance which should be held in responsibility by the PAP government.

        Once again, Thomas, I am sorry that the article might have been misinterpreted. Like you, I am interested in walking towards the well-being of all Singaporeans, whether they are “native” or “new”, and whether they are Singaporeans or not. I am not interested in how we categorise people in Singapore – as long as we allow people into Singapore, it is the responsibility of the government and the people to take care of the people here and one another.

        And this means protecting the peoples’ jobs, their wages, their livelihoods and their well-being. And this is something that needs to be done to everyone here in Singapore. Thus it is the responsibility of the government to be aware and clear of how many people Singapore can hold, how they can adequately provide for the people they estimate to be here in Singapore, and to ensure that the lives of the people here are protected.

        The question – and this is the main question that article seeks to ask is this – has the PAP government done its duty? And to me, the answer is a clear NO.

        Roy

      • Top End

        I’m with michelle on this.

        Please tell me in WHICH COUNTRY, where in DROVES, with the SUPPORT OF ITS LOCAL GOVT & its LAX IMMIGRATION policies, that Singaporeans are taking jobs (even the menial ones) away from the locals? Like what is happening here in Singapore?

        If there indeed is one, yes Singaporeans being labelled Foreign Trash is deserving cos IMO they’ll be taking away the local communitys right to a job and also their livelihood. And the Singapore govt should be at fault too in this case cos they cant provide enough job opportunities locally for its own citizens causing them to look for jobs (even the menial ones!) overseas.

  14. Anonymous

    To all the smart aleck out there including Roythe author, I seek your wisdom to how then should SGP/PAP thread international trade and relationships. What is our key differentiating factor? Why should the MNC set up shop and give you the job u have now? U say u have tons of NRIs as co-workers. I will laugh really hard when u realise u might not even have had ur job in the first place jad it not been for theae FTAs.

    • Roy Ngerng

      Lets not conflate the issue. Singaporeans know we need foreign investment.

      What Singaporeans disagree on is being sold out by the government. These are two separate matters.

      Quite obviously, Singapore needs to keep an open economy. But having an open economy doesn’t mean that the people can be betrayed, while their political leaders earn the highest salaries in the world.

  15. Dico

    I knew long ago that the CECA is ‘a sell the people out contract’. The only beneficiaries on Singapore side are the GLCs which are owned by Temasek and GIC which taps into the lucrative Finance and telecommunication sector in India. While India can export their ‘workers’ out as India is having a big problem curbing unemployment.

    Look at how OCBC and UOB benefit from the CECA. Why would 2 private owned banks get privilege in the CEC? Because UOB had a ‘long standing relationship’ with the famiLEE since LKY’s time. Lee & Lee is the legal advisor to UOB and many of UOB’s subsidiaries, while OCBC had a relative who is a President now.

    PAP are getting very cosy with many private businesses. Many PAP MP holds several executive directorship in private own companies and we have PAP forming $2 companies taking over public assets like the ‘AIMgate’ case.

    So where do you think PAP’s interest lies in? If all issues for the past 6 years did not wake the 60% ‘daft’ citizens up, then don’t blame PAP, because it is the citizen’s issue who are are truly DAFT!

  16. Pingback: Why Are Singaporean PMETs Losing Their Jobs? Here’s Why. | The Heart Truths
  17. Pingback: The Real Reasons Why Singaporean PMETs Are Losing Their Jobs | The Heart Truths
  18. Pingback: Jobs: How PAP has Betrayed Singaporeans | The Heart Truths

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s