Did the job finding landscape for locals improved after govt intervention?

[Guest Displeased]

Recently govt announced some measures to help locals find jobs and reduce hiring discrimination such as CECA. Has it improved? Pretty sure some of you work in HR/HC and would like you to share some inputs.

[Guest Who Cares]

So many articles in 158 recently on the poor FTs, PRs who lost jobs in SG, they are also locals you know, and must ensure they remain employed cos they somehow create jobs for sinkies.

 

https://www.todayonline.com/big-read/big-read-amid-crisis-generation-losing-ones-job-takes-heavy-emotional-and-mental-toll

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/moe-actively-monitoring-foreign-students-bond-challenges

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/malaysian-grad-gets-1k-a-month-as-an-intern

 

A recruiter said not a single Singaporean was hired through the Jobs Bank in the three years she worked at an employment agency.

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/firms-need-to-balance-finding-right-skills-and-hiring-locals-experts

[Guest edmw]

Only a minority of Singaporeans are on this forum (since LGBT are the minority). You should ask this question on Hardware Zone.

[Zackling]

well.. basically, look into changi airport then.. 4300 staffs have to go.

 

mostly are locals. Now those who opts to stay.. will take a pay cut of 50% - 60% + 10% reduction on their Monthly Variable Components. certain staffs are taking a 28% pay cut in overall.. would u still say the govt help u???

 

then govt say.. three companies, the Jumbo Group, Commonwealth Capital and EtonHouse, have already started offering jobs to the retrenched SIA employees. And the employment of SIA stewards and stewardesses as Covid-19 Safe Distancing Ambassadors.. (oh bravo.. hands clapping, praises thrown towards pappies)

 

how many of them of those staffs are willing to enter those sectors given out of good will..? ask urself this very honest question.

 

are singaporeans picky..?? oh yes we fucking are a picky & nasty bunch self entitled strawberry generation, generation X, Y & Z

 

Transfer them to hospital as care attendants? send them to smrt be ambassadors? they will still get pay cut.

 

Flight to nowhere? helpful? nope.. pointless & meaningless

 

And how many folks have changed from cleaners to become dishwashers?? based on the quotes some ministers are so eager & proud to say based on the last GE... 

Edited September 20, 2020 by Zackling

[Guest A Puzzle]

I don't really care.  My greatest concern is why are our MPs and Ministers, not showing solidarity with Singaporeans by taking similar 50% pay-cut?

[Guest Wake up]

Please look at the big picture, don’t just be another self entitled or self centered individual. If because of some people got a paycut doesn’t mean all must follow suit. If the whole nation go into paycut, who will be the one who benefited? What will you get if the MPs or Ministers get a paycut? The situation will turn better? There is nobody to blame for the situation today, this is not a Singapore issue but an international problem. Everyone are into it, so swim together and not drag other to drown with you. UNDERSTAND?

[fenghou]

Our country have been ultra pro-immigrants since LHL took over around 2006, this has created conditions for employers to exploit the system and adopt an unhealthy and bias hiring attitude, instead of working on HR issues such as job progression, job satisfaction and other job-related concerns.

 

Productivity has dropped drastically as a result to that.

 

Even now the government is still very very pro-immigrants and this means the attitude of employers will not change.

158th ranked media (The Straits Times, CNA) has been blasting pro-foreigner propaganda for the last 2 months since election, articles that try to make you feel sorry for the PMET foreigners who lost their jobs, while at the same time blasting stories of successful re-employment by Singaporeans.

 

If 158 has been instructed to blast such propaganda, who know what the real situation is like in reality??

Singaporeans need to be open to foreigners and workers, but unless the incumbent pays attention to really quelling unhealthy hiring practices and protect the local workforce, nothing is going to change.

 

You can be open to foreign talents yet be protective towards the local population.

Don't fall into the trap set by the incumbent that the two are mutually exclusive. They are not. Only leaders who are brought up with ten-year series and generals with no portfolio who want quick solutions will tell you its impossible to protect locals while at the same time be open to talent from overseas. 

 

 

Not sure BW's stance on political comments in this forum. 

If I violated rules please delete my post.

 

Final word : Job landscape has been neglected since 2006, landscape means the entire ecosystem of employers vs job market, fixing it will take time and it can only be fixed if the incumbent internally shift towards wanting to genuinely protect the locals instead of paying lip service (which they are so so so good at).

Edited September 20, 2020 by fenghou

[Guest Policies]

Are you sure about such “market openness” having existed only since 2006 under LHL?

 

Isn’t it a result of the economic policies already implemented by LKY?

[Guest Fatty]

8 hours ago, Guest Wake up said:

Please look at the big picture, don’t just be another self entitled or self centered individual. If because of some people got a paycut doesn’t mean all must follow suit. If the whole nation go into paycut, who will be the one who benefited? What will you get if the MPs or Ministers get a paycut? The situation will turn better? There is nobody to blame for the situation today, this is not a Singapore issue but an international problem. Everyone are into it, so swim together and not drag other to drown with you. UNDERSTAND?

Absolutely. If our MPs and ministers take a pay cut they will lose their dignity 

[Guest Fatty]

18 hours ago, Guest edmw said:

Only a minority of Singaporeans are on this forum (since LGBT are the minority). You should ask this question on Hardware Zone.

Why are you asking us to go to that cesspool? We are higher class than those bbfa over there 

[Guest A Puzzle]

On 9/20/2020 at 10:28 PM, Guest Wake up said:

Please look at the big picture, don’t just be another self entitled or self centered individual. If because of some people got a paycut doesn’t mean all must follow suit. If the whole nation go into paycut, who will be the one who benefited? What will you get if the MPs or Ministers get a paycut? The situation will turn better? There is nobody to blame for the situation today, this is not a Singapore issue but an international problem. Everyone are into it, so swim together and not drag other to drown with you. UNDERSTAND?

Because the ministers always said their salaries are pegged to Singapore good time, so they deserved to be paid obscenely.  Now bad times, shouldn't the reverse be true, or was the truth too hard to accept when it comes to self-serving reward?  Otherwise, what does "standing united", "We are with you, for you, behind you"  actually meant?

[jlone]

https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/2020/09/21/netizens-fume-as-expats-mock-singaporeans-for-not-having-the-qualifications-to-do-jobs-that-fts-have-stolen-from-them/

[Guest 诸葛亮]

2 hours ago, jlone said:

https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/2020/09/21/netizens-fume-as-expats-mock-singaporeans-for-not-having-the-qualifications-to-do-jobs-that-fts-have-stolen-from-them/

When the government is bold and  pay disregard to its own people.  It send a very wrong signal to foreigners that they too, are allowed to do the same to the local.  It is a vicious cycle that will never end.  I have no hope in Singapore.  Look around, and you can feel how depressed everyone is.  War is not fought by weapon, a country's defeat is often the result of a demoralised citizens.  Every Election, every policies are Trojan Horse being pulled into every aspect of our lives.  I tried to save my country, but still many voters allow the rot to happen.  老天无眼!

[Guest Guest]

1 hour ago, Guest 诸葛亮 said:

When the government is bold and  pay disregard to its own people.  It send a very wrong signal to foreigners that they too, are allowed to do the same to the local.  It is a vicious cycle that will never end.  I have no hope in Singapore.  Look around, and you can feel how depressed everyone is.  War is not fought by weapon, a country's defeat is often the result of a demoralised citizens.  Every Election, every policies are Trojan Horse being pulled into every aspect of our lives.  I tried to save my country, but still many voters allow the rot to happen.  老天无眼!

 

Nowadays can don't have to go to violent wars to take over a country, just overwhelm with population and immigration over time, work up the highest level of government and affect policies. In 50 years time, nothing matters anymore.

[jlone]

Foreigners, the convenient bogeyman in a problem that is of the PAP’s own making https:https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/2020/09/22/foreigners-the-convenient-bogeyman-in-a-problem-that-is-paps-own-making/

[Guest what are FTAs?]

On 9/20/2020 at 12:02 PM, Guest Displeased said:

Recently govt announced some measures to help locals find jobs and reduce hiring discrimination such as CECA. Has it improved? Pretty sure some of you work in HR/HC and would like you to share some inputs.

 

The first problem with the question on the topic is already the usage of the abbreviation "CECA".

 

Second problem if you yourself talk of "government measures announced", how can it have improved, if measures seem not yet implemented.

Some measures will only be implemented in the coming months and some only by mid of next year.

How can there be any "improvement" in 5 days after an announcement has been made?

 

CECA is simply something like a Free Trade Agreement (FTA)  between India and Singapore. It does not cover any free entry of people or provides any eased entry of workers/PMET from India to Singapore without such persons going through the normal procedures with MOM on any Pass application. Indians don't get any Work Passes in Singapore easier or more relaxed than other Foreigners who intend to work in Singapore.

• CECA

  India - Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA)

  covers tariff reduction/elimination for 82% of Singapore’s exports to India.
• The 2nd protocol (upgraded CECA) reduces/eliminates tariffs for an additional 30 products.
• Safeguards market access and ensures a more predictable operating environment for service suppliers.

What hiring discrimination has CECA implemented?

Response: None!

 

What issues does CECA cause for Singaporeans to find jobs?

Response: None!

 

I counted around 26 Free Trade Agreements with Singapore in operation. None of them cover any manpower issues or easing of rules implemented by the Singapore government as to Foreigners working in Singapore.

 

It is a false statement to say any FTA has created hiring discrimination or lead to hiring discrimination in Singapore.

Same goes for locals finding jobs in Singapore. All these FTAs do not prevent any Singaporeans to find any job in Singapore

or discriminate any locals in getting a job. The FTAs don't cover the issue of Employment seekers (from overseas or local).

The FTAs (CECA inclusive) do not implement any measures referring to jobs in Singapore or access of Foreigners to work in Singapore.

 

Therefore, it is totally wrong and incorrect to point at this CECA (or any other FTA) while talking about the issue of jobs and locals.

It is inaccurate to harp on CECA or other FTAs while talking about jobs in Singapore and reflects a lack of knowledge what these FTAs aim for.

 

FTAs facilitate the movement of goods and services but do not focus on Employment and the influx of foreign employees.

All in all it is still MOM controlling the influx of Foreign Employees and Workers to Singapore and nobody else.

 

[Guest Guest]

4 minutes ago, Guest what are FTAs? said:

What issues does CECA cause for Singaporeans to find jobs?

Response: None!

 

I counted around 26 Free Trade Agreements with Singapore in operation. None of them cover any manpower issues or easing of rules implemented by the Singapore government as to Foreigners working in Singapore.

 

It is a false statement to say any FTA has created hiring discrimination or lead to hiring discrimination in Singapore.

 

This topic has been very well covered by multiple opposition political candidates or politicians. And there are still people trying to pull wool over all our eyes to claim that CECA does not cause any problems for Singaporeans finding jobs.  You remind me of Guest Disclosed Yourself. Are you one of those PAP IB like this one here: https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/2020/09/10/jaromel-gee-pap-party-member-and-ib-sentenced-to-three-years-jail-and-12-strokes-of-the-cane-for-committing-robbery/    ??

 

 

 

[Guest what are FTAs?]

 

Please point out the specific section in the CECA, India - Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA)

which covers the issue of Singaporeans not finding jobs.

 

Are you trying to pull wool over all our eyes to claim the CECA FTA is any reason for South Asian PMET working in Singapore when the whole CECA FTA does not grant any access (or fast or simplified track) to jobs in Singapore but all job applications for Foreigners are solely handled by MOM????

 

And to harp one a clause of Intra company transfer (which refers to the top level tier of jobs) and is found in all FTAs (not only CECA) and refers to just 5 % of all Foreign Employment Pass Holders in Singapore is exageration!

 

Without these people from the overseas Headquarter, working in Singapore, the companies would not have set foot here and there hadn't been jobs for Singaporeans. Not permitting these 5% of Foreigners to Singapore to oversee the subsidiary company would result in a lose lose situation for Singapore.

 

Since when is something said or claimed by opposition politicians and candidates (who are not even voted into parliament) considered as the truth???

 

From an overseas newspaper (I explicitly did not take any Singapore newspaper, the New York Times had a similar article recently):

 

Are Singaporean workers really losing jobs to Indian expats due to Ceca free-trade deal?

• As Singapore stares into its Covid-fuelled deepest recession, job anxiety is fuelling a sudden new wave of resentment over a deal dating back to 2005
• Read social media and it seems the immigration floodgates have opened, but the figures tell a different story. Experts say jobs are being created, not lost

 

Kok Xinghui and Dewey Sim in Singapore

South China Morning Post, Published: 8:00am, 12 Sep, 2020

 

As Singapore’s economy slows amid the coronavirus pandemic and job losses mount, people’s anxieties over their livelihoods have found a convenient target: a free-trade agreement Singapore signed with India in 2005. On social media , the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (Ceca) is being blamed for willy-nilly letting Indian nationals into Singapore to steal jobs from locals – no matter how many times the government says it is not true.

 

On a Facebook post of a news article explaining that Ceca did not give Indians automatic access to citizenship, permanent residency or employment, Stephanie Low commented: “Our jobs are taken by Ceca! Wait till the ministers’ jobs are also taken by them, then they will know!”

 

Others, like Emran Rahman, disparagingly referred to Indians as Ceca, saying: “Everywhere CECA! Even housing estates have them around!”

On the public group SG Opposition, Michael da Silva said the government was letting professional Indians in to give them citizenship and eventually gain their vote for the ruling party.

These worries have become more pronounced as Singapore battles its worst recession and countries around the world continue struggling to contain the

Covid-19 pandemic .

 

Despite multiple clarifications from the authorities that Ceca does not give Indian jobseekers a free pass into Singapore, disgruntled citizens have latched onto two areas within the 16 chapters of the agreement that came into force in 2005. Their points of contention: intra-corporate transfers that let companies bring India-based staff into Singapore for a maximum term of eight years without having to first advertise the jobs to locals, and a list of 127 professions covered by the deal that range from database administrator, to accountants to financial analysts to medical specialists.

Victor Tan, for example, who requested a pseudonym fearing a backlash that could hurt his career, insisted that job woes were caused by Ceca’s “free flow” of Indian nationals coming to Singapore.

 

He said his 14 years in the relocation industry – helping expatriates move in and out of Singapore – let him see that since 2016, the proportion of nationalities had shifted from being mostly Australian and British, to Indian.

To Tan, the free-trade agreement was “lopsided”. “We don’t see any of our Singapore locals going over to India to hold high positions. Instead, a lot of them are coming here, holding high positions,” he said. “When I was job searching, I didn’t see any opportunities in India for Singaporeans to go over.”

 

His sweeping views of the free-trade agreement are not based on truth. But they do reflect sentiments on social media.

This “obsession”, said Nanyang Technological University sociologist Laavanya Kathiravelu, should be seen within the context of rising economic uncertainty, with Singapore’s economy expected to shrink by up to 7 per cent this year, even with a financial stimulus of about S$93 billion (US$68 billion).

Kathiravelu said: “With the local and global economies experiencing sluggish growth, and many Singaporeans losing their jobs or having to go on reduced pay, the seeming preference for hiring foreigners becomes a higher-stakes issue. It’s being conceived as a zero-sum game, where a job given to a foreigner means one less job for a Singaporean.”

It is not the first time there has been unhappiness over Ceca. Ceca grabbed headlines last year when a man was captured shouting at his condominium’s security guard and netizens immediately assumed he was an Indian expatriate – in fact, he was born in India but now has Singapore citizenship. Vitriol against Indian nationals since then has grown among opposition voices who use Ceca as an anti-immigration scapegoat and call for it to be abolished.

Political analyst Woo Jun Jie said the debate over foreign labour was long-standing but he sensed a shift in the conversation from when the issue became a political hot potato before the 2011 general election. In the years before that vote the population had grown from 4 million in 2000 to 5 million in 2010, but during the same time frame the number of permanent residents and foreigners almost doubled (from 287,000 PRs and 754,000 foreigners in 2000 to 541,000 PRs and 1,305,000 foreigners in 2010).

While the discussion back then focused on the strain the growing pool of foreigners was placing on public infrastructure, this time the debate revolved around issues of inequality and access.

“Specifically, the public discontent now seems to be centred around job availability and pay levels, particularly for local PMETs [professionals, managers, executives and technicians],” he said.

Consequently, when Singapore’s 14th parliament opened last month, much of the debate was on how best to strike a balance between saving jobs for Singaporeans and not cutting out the foreigners needed to beef up Singapore’s small workforce of just 2.33 million and burnish its reputation as a global city.

Those from the ruling People’s Action Party and the opposition gave many suggestions, from enacting anti-discrimination legislation to naming and shaming companies that favoured foreigners to setting a quota for employment passes, while the authorities took the chance to share statistics.

Intra-corporate transferees, for example, account for less than five per cent of all who hold employment passes (a work pass for higher-skilled workers that carries a minimum salary requirement of S$3,900 or about US$2,850). That worked out to about 9,500 workers, and Indian nationals were but “a small segment” of those, said the ministry of trade and industry.

Still, those like Tan remain unhappy and unelected politician Lim Tean continues to fiercely campaign for Ceca to be abolished.

IS CECA REALLY THAT DIFFERENT?

While public displeasure has zeroed in on Ceca, the free-trade agreement – which has helped trade between Singapore and India grow by S$7.6 billion since 2005 – is not much different from the 24 others that Singapore has signed when it comes to the movement of workers.

In an interview with This Week in Asia, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Trade and Industry said most free-trade agreements had commitments on the movement of workers, including on intra-corporate transferees. Only the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) did not include intra-corporate transferees.“The purpose behind that is to facilitate companies when they invest overseas. When you invest overseas, you will want to bring some of your own employees to start off the investment,” said the spokesperson.

 

Minister of Trade and Industry Chan Chun Sing had told local media that Singapore’s Ceca commitments were not unique, and that most of the 164 World Trade Organisation members also had commitments on the entry of intra-corporate transferees under the General Agreement on Trade in Services. He said Singapore companies also made use of the intra-corporate transferees provision to take their employees along when starting out overseas.

Contrary to what Victor Tan and Lim Tean believe, agreements like Ceca benefit Singapore just as they benefit India, the government has maintained. Ceca allows Singapore banks DBS and UOB to set up shop in India, meaning Singapore companies can easily access these banks’ financial services when doing business in India. And there are many doing business in India. Chan said that by 2018, more than 650 Singapore companies had invested in the country.

What is unique about Ceca compared to other free-trade agreements is the annex of 127 professions. But while the list spells out what qualifies as a “profession”, it does not mean that those professionals get free entry into Singapore, or that they are prioritised over others.

“All foreign professionals – including Indian nationals – who wish to come to Singapore must meet work-pass qualifying criteria, including relevant education and professional qualifications, before they are allowed to work in Singapore,” said the Ministry of Trade and Industry spokesperson.

The inclusion of the list, the spokesperson said, was “a negotiated outcome” between Singapore and India.

There have also been many accusations that the finance industry is predominantly filled with Indian nationals. A Facebook user, for example, shared a photo of DBS chief executive Piyush Gupta, a naturalised Singaporean, with Indian staff behind him. The user asked viewers to “find a Singaporean or Chinese” in the photo. Prime Minister

Lee Hsien Loong rebuked the social media user, saying the photo was taken in India where DBS had opened a new office.

“The person who put up the post surely knew this, yet he irresponsibly misused the [photo] to insinuate that DBS in Singapore was not being fair to Singaporeans,” said Lee in a speech in parliament.

While Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh’s request in parliament for data on the breakdown of new jobs that went to citizens, foreigners and permanent residents earlier this year was met with wariness, the discontent over claims of foreigners dominating Singapore’s financial services sector seemed to prompt the government to release more data.

Transport Minister Ong Ye Kung, who sits on the board of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, told parliament that financial services employed 171,000 workers and seven in 10 were Singaporean. Just 16 per cent were foreigners while 14 per cent were permanent residents.

The percentages shift for senior roles, where 44 per cent are Singaporeans, 20 per cent are permanent residents and 36 per cent are foreigners. The foreigners in senior roles, however, are not made up of one nationality.

Ong said: “They come from over 50 countries, the largest group comes from Europe, with other significant nationalities from across Asia and North America.”

Banks in Singapore also shared their employment data with This Week in Asia. Citi Singapore said Singaporeans and permanent residents (PRs) made up around 80 per cent of its total direct hires in the city state, while this number was 95 per cent at its consumer banking department.

Jacinta Low, the head of human resources planning at OCBC Bank, said more than 90 per cent of the bank’s 7,000-strong workforce in Singapore were citizens or PRs. Citizens also account for 82 per cent of the bank’s senior leaders.

For the London-headquartered Standard Chartered bank, 83 per cent of its Singapore workforce were citizens or PRs, as were 90 per cent of its management team, while DBS Bank said over 90 per cent of its 12,000-strong Singapore workforce were Singaporeans and PRs. All 16 members of its top leadership team were Singaporeans.

 

EASY TARGETS

Meanwhile, the fallout from the polarised debate over Ceca is complex. Indian nationals in the city state feel that they are being unfairly targeted while ethnic Indians – who form 7 per cent of the 3.5-million-citizen population – have expressed frustration at an ethnic group being the focus of racist vitriol, even as they have reservations about new migrants and professionals from India who are perceived to be more class conscious.

Kathiravelu, the sociologist from Nanyang Technological University, suggested that Indian professional migrants were highly visible because they lived in “residential enclaves” and gravitated towards specific sectors such as IT and banking.

This visibility, said Kathiravelu, made Indians the targets of xenophobia as they were seen as dominating specific industries and not integrating into the social life of the country.

They were also seen as competing with Singaporeans for resources in a way that white or European expatriates were not, she added. “This is perhaps an expression of structural racism and a colonial hangover where there is still a perception that white expats may be better qualified and suitable for jobs than their Indian or Asian counterparts.”

 

While the nativism that Singapore is grappling with is not unique – opportunistic politicians the world over have flogged such sentiments as countries turn inward – the rise of these feelings is a headache for a city state that relies on an open economy to survive.

Alex Capri, a visiting senior fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Business School, felt this was more of a political issue than an economic one. “This sort of thing plays well in the media. But if looked at objectively, there’s an overall net benefit for Singapore as the multinational enterprises as a whole contribute to Singapore’s economy and create local jobs,” said Capri.

He added that if there were increased regulations to FTAs including Ceca, the city state’s reputation as an open and free hub could be compromised.

Kathiravelu said in times of recession, exclusionary sentiments like xenophobia had been known to rise. “People look for easy targets to blame rather than understanding structural issues for change,” she said.

 

 

 

 

[Guest Jist]

4 hours ago, Guest what are FTAs? said:

 

Please point out the specific section in the CECA, India - Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA)

which covers the issue of Singaporeans not finding jobs.

 

Are you trying to pull wool over all our eyes to claim the CECA FTA is any reason for South Asian PMET working in Singapore when the whole CECA FTA does not grant any access (or fast or simplified track) to jobs in Singapore but all job applications for Foreigners are solely handled by MOM????

 

And to harp one a clause of Intra company transfer (which refers to the top level tier of jobs) and is found in all FTAs (not only CECA) and refers to just 5 % of all Foreign Employment Pass Holders in Singapore is exageration!

 

Without these people from the overseas Headquarter, working in Singapore, the companies would not have set foot here and there hadn't been jobs for Singaporeans. Not permitting these 5% of Foreigners to Singapore to oversee the subsidiary company would result in a lose lose situation for Singapore.

 

Since when is something said or claimed by opposition politicians and candidates (who are not even voted into parliament) considered as the truth???

 

From an overseas newspaper (I explicitly did not take any Singapore newspaper, the New York Times had a similar article recently):

 

Are Singaporean workers really losing jobs to Indian expats due to Ceca free-trade deal?

• As Singapore stares into its Covid-fuelled deepest recession, job anxiety is fuelling a sudden new wave of resentment over a deal dating back to 2005
• Read social media and it seems the immigration floodgates have opened, but the figures tell a different story. Experts say jobs are being created, not lost

 

Kok Xinghui and Dewey Sim in Singapore

South China Morning Post, Published: 8:00am, 12 Sep, 2020

 

As Singapore’s economy slows amid the coronavirus pandemic and job losses mount, people’s anxieties over their livelihoods have found a convenient target: a free-trade agreement Singapore signed with India in 2005. On social media , the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (Ceca) is being blamed for willy-nilly letting Indian nationals into Singapore to steal jobs from locals – no matter how many times the government says it is not true.

 

On a Facebook post of a news article explaining that Ceca did not give Indians automatic access to citizenship, permanent residency or employment, Stephanie Low commented: “Our jobs are taken by Ceca! Wait till the ministers’ jobs are also taken by them, then they will know!”

 

Others, like Emran Rahman, disparagingly referred to Indians as Ceca, saying: “Everywhere CECA! Even housing estates have them around!”

On the public group SG Opposition, Michael da Silva said the government was letting professional Indians in to give them citizenship and eventually gain their vote for the ruling party.

These worries have become more pronounced as Singapore battles its worst recession and countries around the world continue struggling to contain the

Covid-19 pandemic .

 

Despite multiple clarifications from the authorities that Ceca does not give Indian jobseekers a free pass into Singapore, disgruntled citizens have latched onto two areas within the 16 chapters of the agreement that came into force in 2005. Their points of contention: intra-corporate transfers that let companies bring India-based staff into Singapore for a maximum term of eight years without having to first advertise the jobs to locals, and a list of 127 professions covered by the deal that range from database administrator, to accountants to financial analysts to medical specialists.

Victor Tan, for example, who requested a pseudonym fearing a backlash that could hurt his career, insisted that job woes were caused by Ceca’s “free flow” of Indian nationals coming to Singapore.

 

He said his 14 years in the relocation industry – helping expatriates move in and out of Singapore – let him see that since 2016, the proportion of nationalities had shifted from being mostly Australian and British, to Indian.

To Tan, the free-trade agreement was “lopsided”. “We don’t see any of our Singapore locals going over to India to hold high positions. Instead, a lot of them are coming here, holding high positions,” he said. “When I was job searching, I didn’t see any opportunities in India for Singaporeans to go over.”

 

His sweeping views of the free-trade agreement are not based on truth. But they do reflect sentiments on social media.

This “obsession”, said Nanyang Technological University sociologist Laavanya Kathiravelu, should be seen within the context of rising economic uncertainty, with Singapore’s economy expected to shrink by up to 7 per cent this year, even with a financial stimulus of about S$93 billion (US$68 billion).

Kathiravelu said: “With the local and global economies experiencing sluggish growth, and many Singaporeans losing their jobs or having to go on reduced pay, the seeming preference for hiring foreigners becomes a higher-stakes issue. It’s being conceived as a zero-sum game, where a job given to a foreigner means one less job for a Singaporean.”

It is not the first time there has been unhappiness over Ceca. Ceca grabbed headlines last year when a man was captured shouting at his condominium’s security guard and netizens immediately assumed he was an Indian expatriate – in fact, he was born in India but now has Singapore citizenship. Vitriol against Indian nationals since then has grown among opposition voices who use Ceca as an anti-immigration scapegoat and call for it to be abolished.

Political analyst Woo Jun Jie said the debate over foreign labour was long-standing but he sensed a shift in the conversation from when the issue became a political hot potato before the 2011 general election. In the years before that vote the population had grown from 4 million in 2000 to 5 million in 2010, but during the same time frame the number of permanent residents and foreigners almost doubled (from 287,000 PRs and 754,000 foreigners in 2000 to 541,000 PRs and 1,305,000 foreigners in 2010).

While the discussion back then focused on the strain the growing pool of foreigners was placing on public infrastructure, this time the debate revolved around issues of inequality and access.

“Specifically, the public discontent now seems to be centred around job availability and pay levels, particularly for local PMETs [professionals, managers, executives and technicians],” he said.

Consequently, when Singapore’s 14th parliament opened last month, much of the debate was on how best to strike a balance between saving jobs for Singaporeans and not cutting out the foreigners needed to beef up Singapore’s small workforce of just 2.33 million and burnish its reputation as a global city.

Those from the ruling People’s Action Party and the opposition gave many suggestions, from enacting anti-discrimination legislation to naming and shaming companies that favoured foreigners to setting a quota for employment passes, while the authorities took the chance to share statistics.

Intra-corporate transferees, for example, account for less than five per cent of all who hold employment passes (a work pass for higher-skilled workers that carries a minimum salary requirement of S$3,900 or about US$2,850). That worked out to about 9,500 workers, and Indian nationals were but “a small segment” of those, said the ministry of trade and industry.

Still, those like Tan remain unhappy and unelected politician Lim Tean continues to fiercely campaign for Ceca to be abolished.

IS CECA REALLY THAT DIFFERENT?

While public displeasure has zeroed in on Ceca, the free-trade agreement – which has helped trade between Singapore and India grow by S$7.6 billion since 2005 – is not much different from the 24 others that Singapore has signed when it comes to the movement of workers.

In an interview with This Week in Asia, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Trade and Industry said most free-trade agreements had commitments on the movement of workers, including on intra-corporate transferees. Only the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) did not include intra-corporate transferees.“The purpose behind that is to facilitate companies when they invest overseas. When you invest overseas, you will want to bring some of your own employees to start off the investment,” said the spokesperson.

 

Minister of Trade and Industry Chan Chun Sing had told local media that Singapore’s Ceca commitments were not unique, and that most of the 164 World Trade Organisation members also had commitments on the entry of intra-corporate transferees under the General Agreement on Trade in Services. He said Singapore companies also made use of the intra-corporate transferees provision to take their employees along when starting out overseas.

Contrary to what Victor Tan and Lim Tean believe, agreements like Ceca benefit Singapore just as they benefit India, the government has maintained. Ceca allows Singapore banks DBS and UOB to set up shop in India, meaning Singapore companies can easily access these banks’ financial services when doing business in India. And there are many doing business in India. Chan said that by 2018, more than 650 Singapore companies had invested in the country.

What is unique about Ceca compared to other free-trade agreements is the annex of 127 professions. But while the list spells out what qualifies as a “profession”, it does not mean that those professionals get free entry into Singapore, or that they are prioritised over others.

“All foreign professionals – including Indian nationals – who wish to come to Singapore must meet work-pass qualifying criteria, including relevant education and professional qualifications, before they are allowed to work in Singapore,” said the Ministry of Trade and Industry spokesperson.

The inclusion of the list, the spokesperson said, was “a negotiated outcome” between Singapore and India.

There have also been many accusations that the finance industry is predominantly filled with Indian nationals. A Facebook user, for example, shared a photo of DBS chief executive Piyush Gupta, a naturalised Singaporean, with Indian staff behind him. The user asked viewers to “find a Singaporean or Chinese” in the photo. Prime Minister

Lee Hsien Loong rebuked the social media user, saying the photo was taken in India where DBS had opened a new office.

“The person who put up the post surely knew this, yet he irresponsibly misused the [photo] to insinuate that DBS in Singapore was not being fair to Singaporeans,” said Lee in a speech in parliament.

While Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh’s request in parliament for data on the breakdown of new jobs that went to citizens, foreigners and permanent residents earlier this year was met with wariness, the discontent over claims of foreigners dominating Singapore’s financial services sector seemed to prompt the government to release more data.

Transport Minister Ong Ye Kung, who sits on the board of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, told parliament that financial services employed 171,000 workers and seven in 10 were Singaporean. Just 16 per cent were foreigners while 14 per cent were permanent residents.

The percentages shift for senior roles, where 44 per cent are Singaporeans, 20 per cent are permanent residents and 36 per cent are foreigners. The foreigners in senior roles, however, are not made up of one nationality.

Ong said: “They come from over 50 countries, the largest group comes from Europe, with other significant nationalities from across Asia and North America.”

Banks in Singapore also shared their employment data with This Week in Asia. Citi Singapore said Singaporeans and permanent residents (PRs) made up around 80 per cent of its total direct hires in the city state, while this number was 95 per cent at its consumer banking department.

Jacinta Low, the head of human resources planning at OCBC Bank, said more than 90 per cent of the bank’s 7,000-strong workforce in Singapore were citizens or PRs. Citizens also account for 82 per cent of the bank’s senior leaders.

For the London-headquartered Standard Chartered bank, 83 per cent of its Singapore workforce were citizens or PRs, as were 90 per cent of its management team, while DBS Bank said over 90 per cent of its 12,000-strong Singapore workforce were Singaporeans and PRs. All 16 members of its top leadership team were Singaporeans.

 

EASY TARGETS

Meanwhile, the fallout from the polarised debate over Ceca is complex. Indian nationals in the city state feel that they are being unfairly targeted while ethnic Indians – who form 7 per cent of the 3.5-million-citizen population – have expressed frustration at an ethnic group being the focus of racist vitriol, even as they have reservations about new migrants and professionals from India who are perceived to be more class conscious.

Kathiravelu, the sociologist from Nanyang Technological University, suggested that Indian professional migrants were highly visible because they lived in “residential enclaves” and gravitated towards specific sectors such as IT and banking.

This visibility, said Kathiravelu, made Indians the targets of xenophobia as they were seen as dominating specific industries and not integrating into the social life of the country.

They were also seen as competing with Singaporeans for resources in a way that white or European expatriates were not, she added. “This is perhaps an expression of structural racism and a colonial hangover where there is still a perception that white expats may be better qualified and suitable for jobs than their Indian or Asian counterparts.”

 

While the nativism that Singapore is grappling with is not unique – opportunistic politicians the world over have flogged such sentiments as countries turn inward – the rise of these feelings is a headache for a city state that relies on an open economy to survive.

Alex Capri, a visiting senior fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Business School, felt this was more of a political issue than an economic one. “This sort of thing plays well in the media. But if looked at objectively, there’s an overall net benefit for Singapore as the multinational enterprises as a whole contribute to Singapore’s economy and create local jobs,” said Capri.

He added that if there were increased regulations to FTAs including Ceca, the city state’s reputation as an open and free hub could be compromised.

Kathiravelu said in times of recession, exclusionary sentiments like xenophobia had been known to rise. “People look for easy targets to blame rather than understanding structural issues for change,” she said.

 

 

 

 

Very good read. Its funny how locals here continue to blame foreigners and free trade agreements like Ceca that have absolutely no say on discriminatory hiring practices. When you rebutt their claims, they will point you to what an oppie said about the issue, as if what that oppie said is somewhat morw factual than what the government or an outside 3rd party observer says. And also, why is it that no local ever complains that majority of the lowly laborious blue collar jobs are held by foreigners? You know - maids, cleaners, attendants, servants, construction workers, garbage collectors. They dont seem to have a problem with FTs dominating these fields. They only complain when its the cushy high paying PMET desk jobs at stake. Why is this so? Is it because deep down inside these locals look down on foreigners and feel that only locals should be holding high paying jobs? Singapore better be careful not to tread this path, the same path that the USA took and look at them now - country divided by xenophobia and ruled by a right wing, demagogue nutjob. 

[Guest Really Hiring?]

On 9/20/2020 at 9:55 PM, Zackling said:

well.. basically, look into changi airport then.. 4300 staffs have to go.

 

mostly are locals. Now those who opts to stay.. will take a pay cut of 50% - 60% + 10% reduction on their Monthly Variable Components. certain staffs are taking a 28% pay cut in overall.. would u still say the govt help u???

 

then govt say.. three companies, the Jumbo Group, Commonwealth Capital and EtonHouse, have already started offering jobs to the retrenched SIA employees. And the employment of SIA stewards and stewardesses as Covid-19 Safe Distancing Ambassadors.. (oh bravo.. hands clapping, praises thrown towards pappies)

 

 

 

Jumbo Group as in Jumbo Seafood Restaurant? Some years ago, they advertised for management trainees. Salary per month $2500. But I don't think they hired anyone at that price.

[Guest Black Out]

15 hours ago, Guest Jist said:

Very good read. Its funny how locals here continue to blame foreigners and free trade agreements like Ceca that have absolutely no say on discriminatory hiring practices.

Then how cum Shenton way look like "black" market and Changi Business Park look like Chenai Business Park.  I believe in sight, not by hearing from main stream mouth piece.

[Guest Guest]

56 minutes ago, Guest Black Out said:

Then how cum Shenton way look like "black" market and Changi Business Park look like Chenai Business Park.  I believe in sight, not by hearing from main stream mouth piece.

 

Its not 158 for nothing, who knows how many more Ashley Wu's are there.

[Guest Shenton at night]

The Guest seems to have black(ed) out already as the closed his eyes to reality. Seems he is only repeating these propaganda slogans from one certain opposition politician

as if they ever matched with the reality and only stoking racial tensions in Singapore.

 

If you only see black at Shenton Way you shouldn't go at night...

[jlone]

https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/2020/09/25/when-the-pap-denies-and-deflects-the-problem-theres-no-need-for-a-solution-to-the-problem/

[Guest Guest]

The stupid comments by oppie supporters on this post gave me cancer.