A friend asked someone who has written on CECA on FB in the past whether the u/m allegations of Foong Swee Fong are correct. The person replied that “MTI is using a very strict definition, almost strawman definition of what a lot of citizens are concerned about.”
MTI’s interpretation of CECA: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/mti-ceca-indian-nationals-citizenship-pr-employment-pass-13059698
Foong Swee Fong’s understanding of CECA:
Again, the authorities are painting one side of the picture to mislead. This time, it got the MTI to do the dirty work.
It starts off stating authoritatively that there is “no provision under CECA for Indian nationals to become PRs and citizens”. That’s true and actually obvious because this agreement pertains to investment, not citizenship. But we all know that PMEs form the pool for future PRs and citizens, unlike Work Permit holders.
It then says that it is “not true that CECA requires the Singapore authorities to automatically grant employment passes to Indian PMEs who want to work here”.
It gives the impression that Indian nationals are treated no differently from other nationals, but it is not true. All applications for Employment Passes must satisfy the minimum qualifying salaries as well as other standard requirements like educational qualification, employment offer from a company etc. So in that sense, approval is “not automatic”, but it is again stating the obvious.
What they didn’t say is that the Singapore authority is obligated under CECA to grant an Indian applicant an Employment Pass once he or she satisfies the various criteria, whereas, it has no such obligation for other nationals.
If the qualified Indian applicant is rejected, he can seek recourse via his government as provided under CECA.
Let me quote Article 9.3.1: “Each Party shall grant temporary entry to natural persons of other Party,…in accordance with this Chapter.”
Unless I have a different understanding, “shall grant” means “must grant”. And this include 127 different categories of professionals.
MTI goes on to say that “all companies must comply with rules on fair hiring”.
Again, this is misleading because although all companies are subject to the Fair Consideration Framework, that requirement is not applicable if the applicant is an Indian national.
Let me quote Article 9.3.3: “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.”
Economic needs testing basically means the employer must ensure that there are no suitable locals before employing a foreigner, hence, MOM’s Fair Consideration Framework. But Indians are exempted.
I stand corrected because the text in Free Trade Agreements is meant to obfuscate rather than clarify because if the public understands and realise that the odds are stacked against them in favour of businesses, they would be thumping their pitchforks in front of Parliament House, after all, FTAs are actually Investor Rights Agreements. Hope the authorities can clarify.
Foong Swee Fong
And to end, the guy my friend asked also said “And not everything is addressed. Eg. Look at 9.3 i think in ceca, the bring your family clause. No equivalent in japan fta and a few others.”
I think Foong Swee Fong is correct. What do you think?
Thoughts of a Cynical Investor 
Easiest is to apply a heavy levy on indian (or all) EP’s that will go into schemes directly helping Sinkie workers such as workfare, subsidised training, job support scheme (salary co-pay), SGunited jobs & traineeships (cheap interns), special employment credits (employing older workers), etc etc.
Chapter 9 of CECA doesn’t preclude imposition of levies on hiring companies, merely that visas/work passes be granted “expeditiously” as long as criteria are met.
While some may argue that FW levies are tariffs on humans, the specific tariff list in CECA doesn’t cover humans.
Full text of CECA.
But personally, I prefer Singapore to simply blow open the foreigner floodgates & let in another million or 2 of them.
Even though I no longer have rental properties in S’pore.
I think the beef that Sinkies have regarding the families of india EP’s is the clause in Chapter 9 granting them privileges to work (Article 9.6).
Let me highlight:
For natural persons of a Party who have been granted the right to long term
temporary entry and have been allowed to bring in their spouses or dependants, a Party
shall, upon application, grant the accompanying spouses or dependants of the other Party
the right to work as managers, executives or specialists (as defined in paragraphs 2(f)(i)
to (iii) of Article 9.2), subject to its relevant licensing, administrative and registration
requirements.
And for those whose spouses/parents/kids are not quite PME material, the 2nd sentence helps to cover that:
Such spouses or dependants can apply independently in their own
capacity (and not necessarily as accompanying spouses or dependants) and shall not be
barred by the Party granting them the right to work from taking up employment in a
category other than that of managers, executives, or specialists solely on the ground that
they as the accompanying spouses or dependants are already employed in its territory as
managers, executives or specialists.
if one day this city-state has a majority hindu ethnic indian population, how will malaysia and indonesia react ?