ValueBuddies.com : Value Investing Forum - Singapore, Hong Kong, U.S.

India may drag Singapore to WTO for restricting inflow of Indian PMETs



http://www.business-standard.com/article...123_1.html

Those of you planning to make it big in Singapore might be in for a setback. Singapore recently made certain changes to its Employment Pass Framework law to reduce inflow of foreign workers significantly to create more job opportunities for local professionals. The move is expected to impact even those Indians working there at present across various sectors.

The amendments, made on a proposal by its Ministry of Manpower, has armed the Singapore government to bring down the foreign share of the total workforce to around one-third while encouraging employers to invest in productivity in return for incentives in the form of tax breaks.

The move came as a recent Singapore's policy paper predicted that its population would grow by 30 per cent to 6.9 million by 2030, with immigrants making up nearly half that figure. The paper led to demonstrations in Singapore yesterday, a rare happening in the country, in protest against rise in immigrants.

The step has irked India as the new law does not give India a preferential treatment incorporated in the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CECA) between the two countries, operational since 2005. This stance by the Singapore Government is expected to affect Indians working as middle-level managers, executives and technicians.

Speculations are rife that India might take up the issue with World Trade Organization’s (WTO) dispute settlement body. However, according to Singapore such a decision was imperative in the interest of the natives as the share of the foreign workforce is rising very rapidly.

“The one-third is a long term target and we have not imposed quotas as such for any country. Of course, the end result is still a reduction of the current foreign workforce numbers. But in doing so, I do not think we have contravened our commitments in the WTO or the CECA. Moreover, this is not specifically targeted to any one country. We remain very open to foreign talent,” a senior Singapore government official told Business Standard.

According to the Singapore government, the demand of Employment Passes (EP) has surged since its economic recovery in 2010, necessitating such a step.

There are three types of professional passes under EP – Q1, P2 and P1, depending on the kinds of jobs. As per the new law, the qualifying salary thresholds for Q1 and P2 Passes have been raised from $2,800 to $3,000, $4,000 to $4,500 respectively, while for P1 it remains unchanged at $8,000. The educational qualifications requirements have also been tightened under the Q1 Pass category. Foreign professionals who are already working at present would have to earn even higher salaries to retain their work permits.

The Singapore government is taking these measures--raising the salary ceilings of employment passes or increasing the work permit levy-- to increase cost for companies to bring in foreign talents. Additionally, it will offer incentives to those companies in the form of tax breaks for using high-end technology to do the same job instead of being dependant on labour.

Both India and Singapore are currently reviewing the CECA , the talks for which started in 2010. But it has been stuck ever since over various issues, and now this law is all set to create further hurdles.

According to Indian officials involved in the negotiations, this is a violation of the services trade agreement under CECA. This will also adversely affect Indians who are working there as it might lead to job losses, especially for the middle level workers.

India has submitted a request to Singapore for addressing the matter but has not received a formal communication yet.

Currently, there are about 2,00,000 non-resident Indians in Singapore working in ITES, financial services and scientific research sectors among others, according to one estimate.

Quite likely 2006 to 2012 is negative....hence need 2002 to 2012 to 'massage' the numbers....if it is true then during this period(2006 to 2012) when there is an massive increase of population, the lower income was worse off hence I dispute the what the PAP said that an significant increased in population will make life better for the lower bracket....

one can argue that we have a financial crisis in 2008 hence lower income but then we also have a financial crisis in 1997 too...

(18-02-2013, 10:21 AM)Temperament Wrote: [ -> ]

(18-02-2013, 02:51 AM)Behappyalways Wrote: [ -> ]As I posted in another thread......I asked.....where is the real gross monthly income from 2006 to 2012.....why 2002 to 2012? Think about it.....

(17-02-2013, 09:50 PM)pianist Wrote: [ -> ]fr wangsayso blog

Shocking Statistics About the Poor in Singapore
Holy cow. Singapore is doing much worse than I thought. An excerpt from the TODAY newspaper:

Acting Minister for Social and Family Development Chan Chun Sing gave figures to show that incomes at the bottom continue to rise but said the Government will do more to help low-income Singaporeans.
He was responding to Nominated MP Tan Su Shan's question on social mobility.
The real median gross monthly income for employed residents increased 1.3 per cent a year from 2002 to 2012, after rising 2.7 per cent a year from 1996 to 2002, Mr Chan said.
For the lowest 20th percentile of employed residents, their real gross monthly income rose 0.1 per cent each year from 2002 to 2012 and 2.2 per cent a year from 1996 to 2002.
0.1 per cent? That's effectively zero. Especially if you are in the bottom 20 percentile.

Imagine if your real gross monthly income was $1,000 in 2002. Ten years later, your real gross monthly income would have risen to about $1,010 in 2012.

So after one full decade of "national progress" under the PAP government, your quality of living has increased by the value of 2 packs of toilet paper at NTUC Fairprice.

I wonder if Chan Chun Sing managed to keep a straight face, when he said in Parliament that "incomes at the bottom continue to rise".

Yes! WHY?
Why the last election still 60 % leh?
i think i know.
But your Q is too cheem for me leh.
Only have O level basic maths, you know.
So since you highlight again, can you share leh?

(18-02-2013, 06:01 PM)sgd Wrote: [ -> ]

(18-02-2013, 04:17 PM)Caelitus Wrote: [ -> ]

(18-02-2013, 03:14 PM)sgd Wrote: [ -> ]

(18-02-2013, 02:09 PM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ]It depends on what is the % of recycling. In the ideal case of 100% recycling, there is no requirement for any further source of water since all the used water are being recycled.
But, practically, it is not possible to achieve 100% recycling.
So, if Singapore can approach a high % of recycling (50% and above??), the required water source will not increase in the same rate.
The beauty of recycling is that it will scale with usage. The more you use, the more waste water you can recycle. Unlike the traditional river water source which will get depleted when they are overdrawn.
As for desalination plants, since earth is covered with 70% seawater, I assume the source is infinite.

The only question mark now is the energy usage. All these can only be done if energy is available cheaply. Assuming that US starts to export hydraulic fracturing, the energy cost should remain stable or even lower.

Typically to treat raw water chemically is easier than that to desalinate it. Treating raw water using chemicals like bleach to kill bacteria and parasites like guardia and ecoli. Desalinating require electrical power.

Using google, is estimated 1 gallon of bleach cost around US$1, 1 pint bleach can purify around 1000 gallons of raw water There's around 8 pints in a gallon so 1 gallon of bleach can purify 8,000 gallons of water costs $1. Of course if you make it more platable to consume maybe costs a little more. Just to give an assessment of size 1 small swimming pool on a home property needs around 10,000 gallons to fill up. But to desalination 1000 US gallons it may cost around US$4, for 8000 gallons that's US$32 - 32x times the cost.

so eventually cost will be a factor. And with 6.9m that's going to double this cost whichever way we choose to get our water but this also means doubling the "source" more for us means less for them assuming Malaysians do not mind this and does not piss them off too much.

And even if 100% recycling there will still be loss either via evaporation or pemeable water seeping through the soil in the ground.

Water security is important. We have dammed most of our major rivers to increase the size of our catchment area, recycled water through NEWater and mixing it with freshwater, import freshwater (expire in 2061), and opened desalination plants. As long as we do not consume water needlessly (control the demand pattern), gone will be the days when people threaten to cut your water supply.

If you don't increase the population size and it maintain as it is then as these systems come online progressively we will also progressively be more secure.

But 6.9 million means our needs will double and exceed what we can supply that means we are back to being vulnerable all over again.

So means down the road to supply this need we have to purchase much more raw water to treat than current with the malaysians which will mean we become hostage and need to play ah bang - ah deh nonsense all over again or we can build more desalination plants to treat sea water but prepare to pay heck of a lot more.

Are any of you willing to pay in the future maybe $100-$200 monthly just for your water?

Reverse osmosis membrane technology was not widely implemented due to relatively high costs until improvement in technology brought the cost down. The same goes for desalination that is why the one additional 'tap' using desalination was opened in recent years.

We have to consider that improvements in technology may aid us in making existing options cheaper or unlock newer ways of obtaining water. In the game Dune, water can be extracted from the air, non?

For future energy prices, that in itself is debatable. Technology has allowed US to unlocked its shale gas potential. Whether that happens for Europe and other countries is debatable. Likewise, nuclear energy may not be considered now but with improvements in technology, there is that potential. Can a mini nuclear plant be housed in an underground cavern? Possible. Let us maintain a possibility mindset.

We might pay that price in the future but it could be because of runaway printing presses? lol...

李叶明和刘程强在早报上的辩论
http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/singapore/1269299.html

刘程强的反驳
http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/singapore/1269300.html

While on a bus one day, I overheard a conversation between a hongkee and a local. The bus was travelling in the direction of the East Coast area. The hongkee was telling the other guy that in HongKong, he could not see 'a piece of the sky'. I think he probably like the sea view. So, if our population really increased to 6.9mil, I wonder if we could see any part of the sky or not!

this is factual....NEWater is too pure to be drank directly..
those which people drank during National Day, etc have been "re-mineralized"....

(18-02-2013, 12:26 PM)egghead Wrote: [ -> ]

(18-02-2013, 10:35 AM)Stockerman Wrote: [ -> ]Our NEWater is mainly for non-domestic use and cannot be drank directly!!!

Is this a statement of fact or your opinion?

(19-02-2013, 01:57 PM)Stockerman Wrote: [ -> ]this is factual....NEWater is too pure to be drank directly..
those which people drank during National Day, etc have been "re-mineralized"....

What a shocking discovery! How come supermarkets are selling distilled water that has zero mineral content? Are they safe for consumption?

(19-02-2013, 02:07 PM)thefarside Wrote: [ -> ]

(19-02-2013, 01:57 PM)Stockerman Wrote: [ -> ]this is factual....NEWater is too pure to be drank directly..
those which people drank during National Day, etc have been "re-mineralized"....

What a shocking discovery! How come supermarkets are selling distilled water that has zero mineral content? Are they safe for consumption?

if anyone doesnt believe this, can write to PUB to check

use for battery waters and semi-conductors industries...

Votes

But wealth is only one side of the coin of greed. The other side is power. And that is the objective of the second part of the White Paper. Up to 25,000 new citizenships will be given out to foreign professionals and workers every year. There is absolutely no economic reason to convert them to citizens as they can continue to contribute to Singapore’s economy without becoming citizens. The only reason to give them citizenship is political, not economic. New citizens tend to vote for the government of the day – just look at what is happening in East Malaysia. 130,000 new citizens voted in the 2011 General Election, representing 6.32% of the total vote. Without them, PAP’s share of the national vote would have dropped to below 54% and several more constituencies would have been lost to the opposition. With 25,000 new citizens a year for the 5 years to 2016, there will be another 125,000 new citizens, accounting for 5-6% of the national vote; together with 60% they had in GE2011, this gives the PAP a buffer of 15-16% before its share drops below 50%. It is a very high hurdle for the opposition to overcome. At the constituency level, new citizens give the government an additional tool to gerrymander. New citizens can be added in sufficient numbers to save vulnerable constituencies. So the White Paper will help the PAP maintain its grip on the government without having to care for Singaporeans’ well-being.

http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/20/tan...im-16-feb/