- Joined
- Mar 31, 2020
- Messages
- 9,153
- Points
- 113
me see no benefits at all to ordinary sinkypurians leh
if only some sinkypura companies benefited, worth it meh?
if only some sinkypura companies benefited, worth it meh?
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
actually hor, can anyone tell me who really benefited from CECA deal huh?
- Thread starter kaninabuchaojibye
- Start date
Mustafa
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 29,627
- Points
- 113
WP’s Jamus Lim points out reasons why CECA benefits India more than Singapore - The Online Citizen Asia
WP’s Jamus Lim points out reasons why CECA benefits India more than Singapore
Workers’ Party (WP) Member of Parliament (MP) Jamus Lim took to Facebook on Friday (19 March) to pen down reasons why the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) offers more gains for India rather than Singapore.
During WP’s recent house visit at 326C Anchorvale Road, he met a resident who voiced his unhappiness towards the CECA.
“Since its conclusion in 2005, there has been much sturm und drang about the merits of the CECA deal between Singapore and India. These have focus principally on the sense—one shared by Mr Singh—that the deal has been unfair for Singaporean workers, and has led to both a flood of Indian nationals, alongside a loss of local opportunities,” said Mr Lim.
Given that the Sengkang GRC MP is also an international economist, he expressed that he understands that trade deals are rarely “unequivocal”, and that there will often be a loser in a trade deal and that the benefits depend on conditions faced by both parties.
“As an international economist, I recognize that the support for trade liberalization is seldom an unequivocal one, but based on how, on net, the benefits outweighed the costs. This not only means that there would generally be losers in any trade deal, but also that the extent of gains would depend on the specific conditions faced by both parties to any agreement.”
However, for CECA, there a few unique instances that make “gains from the deal less unambiguously positive”, said Mr Lim.
The first is India’s massive population size will lead to a flood of Indian nationals in the country, resulting in displaced locals as these foreigners are more enticing for employers given their lower costs.
“One is that India’s massive population means that even if a small fraction acquired certain skills (such as in ICT), their lower costs could displace local, higher-cost Singaporeans doing the same job, and perhaps even decimate the entire local industry, due to their sheer size,” he explained.
Other reasons include massive decrease in wages for workers as well as quality of workers being hired will be compromised due to lower wages.
“Another is that—since India is so much earlier in its stage of development—it could lead to a significant lowering of wages of workers exposed to such competition, even if they were to keep their jobs. And finally, subtle quality differences may get washed out by the sheer force of lower wages, leaving the end consumer worst off than before.”
To this, Mr Lim pointed out that while the Government said there Singapore companies will benefit from CECA as they will get better access to the Indian market, but there is “no assurance that the net benefits of trade are to be more equally distributed”.
“For example, such corporations would have to be confronted with higher taxes. Or talent on employment or S passes—who are not required to contribute to CPF—could be taxed at a higher marginal rate, to better equalize the costs of hiring between locals and foreigners. These tax revenues could then be used to fund worker safety nets and retraining programs for locals displaced as a result of CECA,” he said.
As such, Mr Lim opined that amending the deal itself is just half the work that needs to be done, as the bigger chunk is to study the effect of CECA on local workers.
“The 3rd review of the deal is currently ongoing, but in my view, amending the deal itself is only half the story. As much depends on policies we can take, at home, to iron out the effects of CECA on our workers.”
Share this:
WP’s Jamus Lim points out reasons why CECA benefits India more than Singapore
Workers’ Party (WP) Member of Parliament (MP) Jamus Lim took to Facebook on Friday (19 March) to pen down reasons why the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) offers more gains for India rather than Singapore.
During WP’s recent house visit at 326C Anchorvale Road, he met a resident who voiced his unhappiness towards the CECA.
“Since its conclusion in 2005, there has been much sturm und drang about the merits of the CECA deal between Singapore and India. These have focus principally on the sense—one shared by Mr Singh—that the deal has been unfair for Singaporean workers, and has led to both a flood of Indian nationals, alongside a loss of local opportunities,” said Mr Lim.
Given that the Sengkang GRC MP is also an international economist, he expressed that he understands that trade deals are rarely “unequivocal”, and that there will often be a loser in a trade deal and that the benefits depend on conditions faced by both parties.
“As an international economist, I recognize that the support for trade liberalization is seldom an unequivocal one, but based on how, on net, the benefits outweighed the costs. This not only means that there would generally be losers in any trade deal, but also that the extent of gains would depend on the specific conditions faced by both parties to any agreement.”
However, for CECA, there a few unique instances that make “gains from the deal less unambiguously positive”, said Mr Lim.
The first is India’s massive population size will lead to a flood of Indian nationals in the country, resulting in displaced locals as these foreigners are more enticing for employers given their lower costs.
“One is that India’s massive population means that even if a small fraction acquired certain skills (such as in ICT), their lower costs could displace local, higher-cost Singaporeans doing the same job, and perhaps even decimate the entire local industry, due to their sheer size,” he explained.
Other reasons include massive decrease in wages for workers as well as quality of workers being hired will be compromised due to lower wages.
“Another is that—since India is so much earlier in its stage of development—it could lead to a significant lowering of wages of workers exposed to such competition, even if they were to keep their jobs. And finally, subtle quality differences may get washed out by the sheer force of lower wages, leaving the end consumer worst off than before.”
To this, Mr Lim pointed out that while the Government said there Singapore companies will benefit from CECA as they will get better access to the Indian market, but there is “no assurance that the net benefits of trade are to be more equally distributed”.
“For example, such corporations would have to be confronted with higher taxes. Or talent on employment or S passes—who are not required to contribute to CPF—could be taxed at a higher marginal rate, to better equalize the costs of hiring between locals and foreigners. These tax revenues could then be used to fund worker safety nets and retraining programs for locals displaced as a result of CECA,” he said.
As such, Mr Lim opined that amending the deal itself is just half the work that needs to be done, as the bigger chunk is to study the effect of CECA on local workers.
“The 3rd review of the deal is currently ongoing, but in my view, amending the deal itself is only half the story. As much depends on policies we can take, at home, to iron out the effects of CECA on our workers.”
Share this:
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 23,949
- Points
- 113
Don't be stupid ceca pay no levies.
Foreign Workers under WP and S-Pass pays Monthly Foreign LeviesDon't be stupid ceca pay no levies.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 23,949
- Points
- 113
Ceca same as bangla? No wonder pap talk circles round these dolts.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 104,239
- Points
- 113
Ho Ching and her cronies benefit lah, so simple also dunno?
Tata Group, DBS etc.
A nation of sheep deserves a government of wolves. Makan you also say it's for your own good.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 104,239
- Points
- 113
Sinkieland has been signing assymetric (lopsided) FTAs with other countries for quite some time. China, Japan etc. If you are so inclined, you can go read the published documents of those FTAs.
Back then, it was understood that signing 'lopsided' FTAs was inevitable, since Sinkieland has no agriculture and it would import food to keep the farmers in those countries happy. Farmer votes are important for election victory, except for China, which has no real elections.
But CECA's scope has gone beyond what a FTA should be.
Back then, it was understood that signing 'lopsided' FTAs was inevitable, since Sinkieland has no agriculture and it would import food to keep the farmers in those countries happy. Farmer votes are important for election victory, except for China, which has no real elections.
But CECA's scope has gone beyond what a FTA should be.
PAP Govt signed the CECA (Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement ) with India.Ceca same as bangla? No wonder pap talk circles round these dolts.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2016
- Messages
- 35,356
- Points
- 113
ho Ching that lao cheebye gets to suck modi's black cock.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 104,239
- Points
- 113
Actually some do. For example, Sinkies who work in some banks are sent to India for a few months for 'training', but essentially they're in charge of training the next batch of ah nehs who will replace Sinkies. So clever!
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2017
- Messages
- 17,497
- Points
- 113
Actually some do. For example, Sinkies who work in some banks are sent to India for a few months for 'training', but essentially they're in charge of training the next batch of ah nehs who will replace Sinkies. So clever!
Last time my bank sent me to Chennai to set up the back office hub....really a god forsaken place.
Also spent 2 months in New Delhi to work with TaTa...and only travel from hotel to office daily.
Eat in hotel...and subject to the fucking "luxury tax" of 40%
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 104,239
- Points
- 113
Think of it this way: that 40% tax prevents you from getting food poisoning.
I've heard plenty of horror stories regarding banks' back offices from NS reservist mates.
Too many black faces, and their numbers magically increase with every passing year. Their words, not mine.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 29,627
- Points
- 113
Netizens dismiss IPS study findings that state younger, higher-income Singaporeans are more accepting of immigrants
by The Online Citizen
25/03/2021
in Comments, Current Affairs
Reading Time: 4 mins read
8
Younger Singaporeans as well as those who fall under the higher-earning bracket view immigrants more positively, according to a study conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) released on Wednesday (24 March).
This includes naturalised citizens as well as permanent residents.
Individuals with higher education, earning higher salaries or who live in larger housing types are more positive about the economic impact of immigrants and immigration.
However, they are less accepting when it comes to the social and cultural implications, the study noted.
IPS stated in its study that it is not surprising to discover that naturalised citizens and PRs view immigration and immigrants in a more positive manner given that they were once part of this group.
It continued, “(Singaporeans) who were less well-off viewed immigrants as economic and employment threats, while those who were more well-off were more concerned about the social and cultural dimensions.”
The study also revealed that about 45.1 per cent of Singaporeans were on the fence with regards to the impact of immigrants on Singapore’s development, just like the results found in Taiwan, the United States, Sweden and Switzerland.
This is different from the results gathered in countries like Malaysia, Thailand and Australia where more than 40 per cent of its citizens expressed that immigrants had “quite bad” or “very bad” impact on their country’s development.
In Singapore, naturalised citizens, PRs and younger Singaporeans were more positive of the economic impact of immigrants to the country. They were also more likely to agree that immigrants strengthen cultural diversity.
In the IPS study, 60 per cent of individuals in the youngest group aged 21 to 35 agreed that immigration helps to fill important job vacancies, in comparison to just 43 per cent in the older than 65 group.
The youngest group also agree that immigration provides people from poor countries a better living, and asylum to political refugees.
Head of the IPS Social Lab, Dr Mathew Mathews said that although both the social and economic implications of immigration weigh on people’s minds, a larger number of them are worried about the impact of immigration on unemployment.
He also went on to note that it is more obvious for those who are above 50, as well as those who are less educated and have lower incomes.
“For these groups, the economic threat weighs more strongly, as they wonder how much more immigration will continue to impact their livelihoods,” he said.
He added, “It is inevitable that when people are concerned about immigrants as potential hindrances to their economic well-being, that they will also be more antagonistic to them – and it has social implications.”
The study found out that only slightly over 46 per cent of those aged 21 to 35 disagreed with the statement that immigration increases the crime rate.
However, the older group along with locally born citizens want stricter limits imposed on the number of foreigners who can enter Singapore.
Close to half of Singaporeans above the age of 50 believe that immigration caused the rise of unemployment for Singapore, compared to only 38.4 per cent of those aged between 21 and 35 who think so.
“This diversity of views when it comes to immigration highlights the need for policymaking to consider potential impacts as well as the population’s threshold for immigration in lived spaces,” said IPS.
It continued, “When it comes to policy preferences vis-a-vis immigration, the majority of Singapore respondents are open to foreigners coming into Singapore, but believe that numbers should be within strict limits enforced by the state.”
Netizens’ slam the findings from the study
Over on social media, online users slammed the IPS study, questioning who the Institute had picked as its respondents for this survey.
Penning their points on The Straits Times’ Facebook page, they said that the survey “does not make sense or simply a biased one”, adding that it is not an “accurate conclusion”.
Some of them even pointed out that those surveyed must be “new citizens”, given how they feel about immigrants and immigration in Singapore.
A number of them noted that foreigners are needed in certain industries like Food & Beverage, construction and cleaners, but not for white collars jobs as they are then “stealing jobs and promotion opportunities” from local Singaporeans.
Some expressed that the rich will not find foreigners a threat to their livelihood, as their employment is not affected by them.
Share this:
by The Online Citizen
25/03/2021
in Comments, Current Affairs
Reading Time: 4 mins read
8
Younger Singaporeans as well as those who fall under the higher-earning bracket view immigrants more positively, according to a study conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) released on Wednesday (24 March).
This includes naturalised citizens as well as permanent residents.
Individuals with higher education, earning higher salaries or who live in larger housing types are more positive about the economic impact of immigrants and immigration.
However, they are less accepting when it comes to the social and cultural implications, the study noted.
IPS stated in its study that it is not surprising to discover that naturalised citizens and PRs view immigration and immigrants in a more positive manner given that they were once part of this group.
It continued, “(Singaporeans) who were less well-off viewed immigrants as economic and employment threats, while those who were more well-off were more concerned about the social and cultural dimensions.”
The study also revealed that about 45.1 per cent of Singaporeans were on the fence with regards to the impact of immigrants on Singapore’s development, just like the results found in Taiwan, the United States, Sweden and Switzerland.
This is different from the results gathered in countries like Malaysia, Thailand and Australia where more than 40 per cent of its citizens expressed that immigrants had “quite bad” or “very bad” impact on their country’s development.
In Singapore, naturalised citizens, PRs and younger Singaporeans were more positive of the economic impact of immigrants to the country. They were also more likely to agree that immigrants strengthen cultural diversity.
In the IPS study, 60 per cent of individuals in the youngest group aged 21 to 35 agreed that immigration helps to fill important job vacancies, in comparison to just 43 per cent in the older than 65 group.
The youngest group also agree that immigration provides people from poor countries a better living, and asylum to political refugees.
Head of the IPS Social Lab, Dr Mathew Mathews said that although both the social and economic implications of immigration weigh on people’s minds, a larger number of them are worried about the impact of immigration on unemployment.
He also went on to note that it is more obvious for those who are above 50, as well as those who are less educated and have lower incomes.
“For these groups, the economic threat weighs more strongly, as they wonder how much more immigration will continue to impact their livelihoods,” he said.
He added, “It is inevitable that when people are concerned about immigrants as potential hindrances to their economic well-being, that they will also be more antagonistic to them – and it has social implications.”
The study found out that only slightly over 46 per cent of those aged 21 to 35 disagreed with the statement that immigration increases the crime rate.
However, the older group along with locally born citizens want stricter limits imposed on the number of foreigners who can enter Singapore.
Close to half of Singaporeans above the age of 50 believe that immigration caused the rise of unemployment for Singapore, compared to only 38.4 per cent of those aged between 21 and 35 who think so.
“This diversity of views when it comes to immigration highlights the need for policymaking to consider potential impacts as well as the population’s threshold for immigration in lived spaces,” said IPS.
It continued, “When it comes to policy preferences vis-a-vis immigration, the majority of Singapore respondents are open to foreigners coming into Singapore, but believe that numbers should be within strict limits enforced by the state.”
Netizens’ slam the findings from the study
Over on social media, online users slammed the IPS study, questioning who the Institute had picked as its respondents for this survey.
Penning their points on The Straits Times’ Facebook page, they said that the survey “does not make sense or simply a biased one”, adding that it is not an “accurate conclusion”.
Some of them even pointed out that those surveyed must be “new citizens”, given how they feel about immigrants and immigration in Singapore.
A number of them noted that foreigners are needed in certain industries like Food & Beverage, construction and cleaners, but not for white collars jobs as they are then “stealing jobs and promotion opportunities” from local Singaporeans.
Some expressed that the rich will not find foreigners a threat to their livelihood, as their employment is not affected by them.
Share this:
Very true. Teres only 2 sinkies in my workplace. The rest of them are Msian cheena. They only kip to themselves. Selfish lot.
Similar threads
