People’s Voice Party kickstarts #AbolishCECA campaign

In line with its commitment to push for the abolishment of the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA), People’s Voice Party (PV) has initiated the #AbolishCECA campaign.

Highlighting that #AbolishCECA is a non-partisan project, PV in a statement on Wednesday (26 August) said that the campaign kicks off at 8pm tonight.

An online petition will be published on PV’s Facebook page, which will be supplemented by physical gatherings across Singapore over the next few weeks for those interested in signing the petition in person.

PV chief Lim Tean will also be putting up a video on the campaign on Sunday (30 August) on YouTube and Facebook.

In a Facebook post today, Mr Lim called on members of the public to sign up as volunteers “regardless of political affiliation”.

“#AbolishCECA. Sign the petition simply by typing your name in the comment section to this post.

“We will deliver the petition to Parliament in 4 weeks. Will you join us?” he wrote.

CECA, or the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement in full, is a free trade agreement between Singapore and India signed around 15 years ago.

The agreement facilitates freer movement of Indian national professionals in sectors such as technology, medicine, engineering and finance into Singapore. Double taxation and tariff barriers are lifted under CECA.

 

The above is copied from TOC.

The Singapore Core is another Trojan Horse Singaporeans must be consciously aware of

 It sounds so good for the leaders to be talking about boosting or strengthening the Singapore Core. How can this be wrong or unsound and to be wary of? Is this not good for Singaporeans?

Strengthening the Singapore Core at face value is a good thing to the unwary and unsuspecting Singaporeans. The Singapore Core must be about Singaporeans and thus must be good right? 

Wrong. Make sure you know the definition of the Singapore Core. The Singapore Core is not about Singaporeans but about Singaporeans and PRs ie the infamous four letter word aka 'locals'. So why is this dangerous to the well being of Singaporeans? The Singapore Core at this moment is a term used loosely and freely without a clear definition. This can be very dangerous. The ratio of Singaporeans to PRs in the Singapore Core, if not specified, can be anything from 90:10 in favour of Singaporeans or 90:10 in favour of PRs that are not citizens, not Singaporeans. Are Singaporeans happy with a Singapore Core consisting of 70% or more PRs among the PMETs?

If the percentage of PRs in the Singapore Core is not clearly defined, it would be the same as the flood of Employment Pass and S Pass holders running out of control at the detriment of Singaporean PMETs. Can you see a Trojan Horse with more PRs than Singaporeans inside, at the extreme could be anything from 60% to 90% PRs. If that is the case, is it good for Singaporeans? The Singaporean Core is no different from lumping Singaporeans and PRs together as 'locals'. Singaporeans must object to this Core.

Without any definitive clarification, unthinking daft Singaporeans would again be taken for a ride to believe that strengthening Singapore Core means strengthening Singaporeans when it could be strengthening the position of foreigners, ie PRs. This is like saying 70% of the staff are locals without telling how many are Singaporeans. Singaporeans must not take things for granted like the CECA is good without questioning until thousands of PMETs lost their jobs and thousands of Singaporean families are in dire straits. And with employment statistics hidden under the term 'locals' do Singaporeans know what is the true state of affair of Singaporeans?

Singaporeans must demand a clearly defined Singapore Core and not to let this go against the interests of Singaporeans. We have enough of Trojan Horses, Singaporeans cannot afford to have another Trojan Horse that would seal their fate as a minority and third class citizens in their own country.

Do Singaporeans know what is the meaning of 'locals' and what is the meaning of the Singaporean Core? Why must the Singaporean Core be about Singaporeans and PRs and not Singaporeans alone? When foreigners are easily and quickly converted to PRs and be included in the Singaporean Core, who is wiser? It makes a mockery of the Singaporean Core.

Angmoh wildlife thinking Singapore is still their colony

A mitsubishi lancer in front signal left and wanted to enter into the McDonalds area Carpark so the driver accelerate veered left in to the carpark.

Ironically the cyclist in yellow already indicated his unhappiness when the driver in front indicated his intention. Gesturing with his hand.

A mitsubishi lancer in front signal left and wanted to enter into the McDonalds area Carpark so the driver accelerate veered left in to the carpark.

Ironically the cyclist in yellow already indicated his unhappiness when the driver in front indicated his intention. Gesturing with his hand.

- More at AllSingaporeStuff.com https://www.allsingaporestuff.com/article/amdk-cyclists-confront-driver-blocking-traffic-and-disregarding-road-safety
FB: http://fb.com/allsgstuff

I hope the police will arrest these wildlife, put them in a cage and throw them into the sea.  Singapore belongs to Singaporeans, not to these wildlife. The arrogance and lawlessness of these wildlife cannot be tolerated as it is not only dangerous to Singaporeans but insulted our dignity and sovereignty. 

When is the govt going to put a stop to all the wildlife they have imported to bully Singaporeans?

 Singapore is not a British colony. So go fuck off to your own country.

CECA rules prevail or MOM rules prevail?

CECA exempt their employees from MOM criteria in issuing EP and SP.  See Article 9.3.3.

Article 9.3.3 of that agreement states that “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.”

In plain English, it is not compulsory for companies from this country to employ local talents, but are free to bring in their own qualified nationals. In other words, they are not subject to schemes like Fair Consideration Framework.

'Many people know that quite a few companies from that country at Changi Business Park is filled to the brim with their own nationals. Why didn’t MOM take them to task earlier? The simple reason is that they are protected by CECA all along.... (Luckily MP Ang Wei Neng just found out. Many MPs and ministers still sleeping or pretending not to know. Forgive him, he is from West Coast, probably never been to that part of singapore. What about the MPs of that constituency, also dunno?) Within brackets are my comments.

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.”'

Above is quoted from posts by Foong Swee Fong in TRE.

Compare the above terms with what Chan Chun Sing said about the MOM requirements that CECA Indians must abide by, then see the contradictions. Obviously the two statements did not agree. This is what Chan Chun Sing said in CNA,

'It is also not true that CECA requires Singapore authorities to automatically grant Employment Passes to professionals, managers and executives from India who want to work here, the statement added....

Reiterating these points, the minister told CNA on Saturday that all foreign nationals applying for Employment Passes must meet the prevailing criteria. Existing rules that stipulate hiring be “done in a meritocratic and non-discriminatory way” also must be adhered to by employers. 

Indian nationals seeking to enter Singapore under CECA as “intra-corporate transferees”, or employees transferred from a company’s overseas unit to Singapore, will also have to meet these rules, he added.'

Between the two criteria above, the CECA said Indian nationals ' are not subject to schemes like Fair Consideration Framework, no need labour market testing'. Chan Chun Sing said they are, 'under CECA as “intra-corporate transferees”, or employees transferred from a company’s overseas unit to Singapore, will also have to meet these rules.'

Which rule shall prevail, the CECA rules or the MOM rules stated by Chan Chun Sing. It cannot be both shall prevail. One must over ride the other. The Indian govt once wanted to sue the Singapore govt over this? 

What do you think? Who is in a state of denial?

The Silly Logic Of Singapore's Employment Strategy

 The Silly Logic Of Singapore's Employment Strategy

Let it be very clear in our head:

1. No sovereign and sensible country in the world would allow foreigners to invade its territory in any form, any way, any how.

2. No intelligent and wise government worth its salt would allow foreign job hunters to come into the country to dominate and overwhelm its tiny job market.

3. No caring and patriotic leader would allow foreign scavengers to steal and rob in broad daylight the rice-bowls (their only means of livelihood) of his own countrymen.

4. No decent brain would think of providing an avenue for the influx of alien 'talents' from a third world country (that has more than one billion mouths to feed) to infiltrate, invade, infest and imbalance the employment equilibrium within its beloved country and jeopardise the livelihood and survival of its own citizens.

Now, take a closer and deeper look into the employment strategy of Singapore. What do you think it is? It is at the very least, silly.

Recently, the Chief of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, Ravi Menon openly stated, and therefore confirmed that 57% of senior management from the banking sector are foreign employees.

The 57% is a good indication that the banking industry clearly prefers foreigners than Singaporeans. How has the employment situation in this lucrative sector stealthily crept up to this unhealthy state? Someone must be sleeping.

Are Singaporeans really less educated, less well-trained, less qualified, less intelligent and therefore less competitive? Are our universities producing misfit and unfit graduates that can't even compete with third world village pumpkins with nicely printed papers from Degree Mills?

In the past 15 years, since CECA was signed to secure a steady supply of very hungry food hunters from India, the government had openly, earnestly and relentlessly discouraged Singaporeans from pursuing a degree. Many Junior Colleges have been deliberately closed down.

Recently retired Minister Khaw Boon Wan proudly and crudely said,

“You own a degree, but so what? You can’t eat it. If that cannot give you a good life, a good job, it is meaningless. Can you have a whole country where 100 percent are graduates? I am not so sure ... What you do not want is to create huge graduate unemployment.” (Straits Times; 18 May 2013).

Yes, no smart government would want a 100% graduate population. It would be very difficult for the government to cater jobs for all of them. Moreover, there would be too many smart thinking and analytical people to scrutinise the competency and quality of the leadership in government. This is understandable.

We have always thought that too many graduates in Singapore is not a good thing. But now we learn that 57% of senior bankers are foreign 'talents‘. The question is: How many of this 57% are graduates?

Can we take it that EP holders are mostly graduates? If so, then why does the government keep discouraging us from pursuing a degree and yet allow jobs that require degree holders to go to foreigners with degrees?

I simply can't imagine that a self-proclaimed "caring and outstanding" government can purposely weaken its own workforce by discouraging the citizens from attaining higher education (a basic degree) which would definitely enable them to compete on equal footing in a global economy.

"Go for mastery of skills, said Tharman (Business Times, 18 Sep 2014). And what else did the other Ministers, such as the Trade and Industry Minister and the NTUC Chief (who has been kicked out by the voters in the last GE), said? They said similar things.

Our Universities have been boasting to the world how good they are, even claiming to be Top 10 in Asia, yet these very same Universities cannot even produce top-notch PMETs, such as IT professionals and Bankers? Shameful? Of course!

Think:

Is there any other silly government in the world that purposely weakens it’s own workforce and then bring in foreigners to occupy the lucrative top jobs?


Queen of Heart 

 

PS. Posted on behalf of Queen of Heart