A picture tells a thousand words. See the genius of the government in obfuscating the data on Indian nationals facilitated by CECA to work in Singapore. The sleigh of hand is the refusal to publicise real data, to co-mingle data of PRs with citizens, and keep secret the pathway to citizenship.
The myth of CECA numbers:
Populist blogger Critical Spectator said Sep 15 he "honestly can't believe this topic keeps coming back again and again - but, eh, let's cut to the most crucial fact for the umpteenth time: How many Indians are actually employed in Singapore through the provisions of CECA? 500". He said the data is public, why are we Singaporeans so dumb? CS is intelligent, but as usual, a sucker for fallacy from authority.
Well I could'nt find anything in official statistics, but Straits Time Jul 7 covering the 'myth' of CECA being a free-flow for Indian nationals, said "All foreign nationals, including Indian professionals and intra-corporate transferees (ICTs), have to meet prevailing work pass criteria before they are allowed to work in Singapore. ICTs refer to transfers of a company's employees from one country to another. They have consistently constituted a very small number - about 4,200 in 2020, of which 500 were from India."
So please, please, please the 500 is only ICTs. What about those that come in via direct EP channels?
Now how many Indian companies have opened office here? I found an Indian source "India Briefing" which said in 2018 about 8,000 Indian companies have set up offices in Singapore since 2000.
So yes, you probably never tasted roti pratta if you believe 8,000 Indian companies bring in only 500 ICTs.
So let's say the 500 is inclusive of ICTs plus all other EPs, then you probably believe in the tooth fairy. You don't know how to compute faucet flow rates or the size of the funnel. You never heard of Indians given citizenship. And if you think Permanent Residency status is equivalent to being locals then you also believe Elephas maximus indicus (Indian elephants) are the same as Kuching Singapura (Singapore common cat).
The govie says they don't provide employment data with national breakdowns as it may be racially sensitive. But if the figures of Indian nationals are so low, should not it be wiser to publicise it?
The myth of ICA as the gatekeeper:
The Minister of Trade and Industry has explained "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.”
This is the kind of fallacy from authority that is constantly quoted ad verbatim by many such as CS to dumb down on those who question the data or lack of it. One needs to distinguish policies from administration. It's like separating the wheat from the chaff. Policy makers bring in the harvest. The administrators (or Immigration) allows only the wheat. More harvest, more wheat.
And here's the cruncher. If the labour mobility clause and annex of 127 professions do not provide unfettered access because ICA has the last say, why put up that troublesome clause in the agreement?
The myth of anti-protectionism:
Here is another official bunkum. Resistance to CECA is succumbing to nativism and protectionism which seriously jeopardises Singapore's economic well being. As a small country, we have to be plugged into the global economy and that requires of us to have open market policies. This is yet another fallacy from authority. Protecting Singapore jobs has nothing to do with trade protectionism. Not a single Singaporean is saying anything about preventing any companies opening here nor the importation of any goods. That is trade protectionism, let's all be very clear. Neither does job protection means curtailing the investors' ability to build their management team. Certainly, high calibre personnel with experience, technical knowledge, ideas, and contacts are welcome as they have been since 1965.
The myth of racism:
The government frames their objections to criticisms in predictable ways. They politicise it by throwing the 'racist and xenophobia' cudgel. Any criticism that is on current hot topics are pandering to populism. All these comes off the playbook of the Democrats and liberal left of the US. Nothing we have seen expressed in social media, or comments by opposition members, can be construed as racist. Singaporeans are making their point on a policy that throws citizens under the bus. We all appreciate that Indian nationals are here trying to do the best for their family. For 15 years, majority of Singaporeans suppressed their angst against the CECA policy. Singaporeans are docile creatures, but there certainly may be a very small number of isolated cases where this anger has manifested in personal affronts against some Indian nationals. In the main, there is no outburst against the Indian immigrant community, for now. Instead of recognising opposition NMP Leong voicing the concerns of many citizens, the Minister for Law raised the racism bogeyman card. However, it is a fool who will place his bet against the rising tide. The bogeyman may well materialise.
The myth of CECA benefits:
The government holds the view the social disruption of suppressed wages caused by the CECA policy is outweighed by the economic benefits derived from trade with India. It flashes numbers that show increased trade flows and FDIs. More Indian companies setting offices in Singapore mean more jobs here (thus their favorite anthemn - FTs create jobs for Singaporeans) and Singapore companies opening in India also means more overseas jobs. All these numbers mean nothing in isolation. Trade numbers need to be unpacked. For example, could the numbers have been achieved with a vanilla FTA? How much of those exports to India were entreport trade? How much were pure tax mechanisms with pricing transfers? etc etc. India still ranks low as a trading partner of Singapore.
For Indian companies here, were is the labour data. I remember during my time in a corporation, we used to submit a detailed employment survey form annually to the Labour ministry. There should be employee composition data at the finger tips. What's their total headcount, what % are local? Why show trade data but not these numbers?
The myth of employment numbers:
"The number of Employment Pass (EP) holders in Singapore increased from 65,000 in 2005 to 177,000 in 2020. This translates to an annual growth rate of just under 7 per cent, and an increase of 112,000. In comparison, the number of local PMEs grew by more than 380,000 in the same period." Manpower minister
I cannot believe this. 112,000 is 7% of 1,600,000. There are that many EP holders here? The number does not seem right. Now the local PMEs grew by 350,000. Notice no % is provided?
"In infocomm, the number of EPs increased by around 25,000, while the number of jobs created for local PMEs was around 35,000. In finance, the corresponding figures were 20,000 and 85,000." Manpower minister
42% of new jobs in Infocomm goes to foreigners. Does that not indicate our educational system has gone wacky?
The trick to obfuscate is to dump truckload of numbers. Leong has no time to process this in the debate. A quick parsing of the data shows up the lies in the numbers. Firstly, the numbers were not distilled for CECA specificity. It gets one distracted, and that is the whole idea. Secondly and most importantly, please please please understand, to the government, "local" means including PRs.
Another sore thumb that no one has ever spoken about are the CECA spouses. During the 1st gen leaders time, most expat wives had no need to work. The employed spouses were top executives and their family adequately taken care of. Many expat wives spend their time and effort in volunteer work, their contributions largely un-noticed and under-appreciated. Today's CECA wives come in, obtain a Long Term Visit Pass, and are out looking for jobs the next day. It's a double whammy to Singapore workers. What are the numbers for these category? Do you expect Leong to know about this?
Conclusion:
Leong is brave but naive to go into the lion's den without full access to data in a debate that can only be won by throwing out numbers. On the other hand, the government, instead of taking an adversarial stand, should have made an effort to convince Leong outside of parliament. What the govt wanted out of the debate is to win political brownie points. But convincing Leong would have trickled down to the thousands who tune in to a different platform. All the Minister of Manpower could have done was to introduce Leong to Mr Wong Wee Kim, the Chief Statistician. Simply give Leong a desk and a helper to query the database to his content. That is giving Leong a rope to hang himself if government numbers don't lie,
Can we please deal with our problems and leave out the politics? As Han Fook Kwang, editor-at-large of Straits Times said, the rising labour discontent is grounded on "insecurities about livelihoods, standards of living and retirement security". The consistent regurgitation of the fallacies from authority and the bunkum protectionism point, indicates the government is not listening to the surging discontent on the ground.
Other related blogs :
CECA And The Delusion Of Indian HR Exceptionalism - Episode 1
Government Thinks Singaporeans Are Too Stupid For Lots Of Jobs
CECA - the dangers of labour mobility
CECA - the shocks of labour mobility
2 comments:
Without Mr Leong's courage to ask reasonable questions despite incomplete information, would it reveal the fallacies and unaccommodating responses so well analyzed and articulated in this article. Would sentiment really have to sour and situation deteriorate significantly before issues be addressed properly and corrected? No wonder present generation and their children on average have much anxiety in their lives, jobs and retirement.
Yes we ought to commend Leong. He has taken a constructive approach unlike some other opposition whose frustration with the government has embittered them to be more confrontational. That's why I said the government should work with Leong instead of playing him to be an unschooled half-past-six economist.
Post a Comment