WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
ORGANISATION MONDIALE DU COMMERCE  
ORGANIZACIÓN MUNDIAL DEL COMERCIO WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
8 September 2004 
 (04-3781) 
Trade Policy Review Body 
14 and 16 June 2004 Original:  English/ 
                 anglais/                  inglés 
  
TRADE POLICY REVIEW 
SINGAPORE 
Minutes of Meeting
 
Addendum  
Chairperson:  H.E. Mrs. Puangrat Asavapisit (Thailand) 
 This document contains the advance writte n questions, and replies provided by Singapore.1 
__________________________________________________________________________________  
Organe d'examen des politiques commerciales 
14 et 16 June 2004  
EXAMEN DES POLITIQUES COMMERCIALES 
SINGAPOUR 
Compte rendu de la réunion
 
Addendum  
Présidente:  S.E.  Mme Puangrat Asavapisit (Thaïlande) 
 
 Le présent document contient les questions écrites communiquées à l'avance et les réponses 
fournies par Singapour.1 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Órgano de Examen de las Políticas Comerciales 
14 y 16 de junio de 2004  
EXAMEN DE LAS POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES 
SINGAPUR 
Acta de la reunión
 
Addendum  
Presidente:  Excma. Sra. Puangrat Asavapisit (Tailandia) 
 
 En el presente documento figuran las pre guntas presentadas anticipadamente por escrito, 
junto con las respuestas facilitadas por Singapur.1 
  
                                                     
 
1 In English only./En anglais seulement./En inglés solamente.  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
 ADVANCE WRITTEN QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS AND 
REPLIES PROVIDED BY SINGAPORE 
QUESTIONS FROM JAPAN  
Secretariat Report  
III TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(B) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS 
(vi) Contingency measures (WT/TPR/S/130, page 38, paragraph 33) (b) Safeguards 
The Secretariat Report states that Singapore has no legislation on safeguards. 
Does Singapore have any plans for legislation on safeguards? 
Singapore does not have any plans for legislation on safeguards. (viii) Government Procurement (WT/TPR/ S/130, pages 43 to 44, paragraph 53) 
The Secretariat Report states "Singapore maintains a 2.5 % preference margin for the supply of goods 
and auxiliary services from other ASEAN members fro m untied loans.  However, according to the 
authorities, the Government does not normally seek external financing through loans but would 
honour this commitment should it occur; as this has not  occurred thus far, the preference is effectively 
non-operational ." If this is true, it seems to be mo re coherent to the spirit of the WTO GPA (i.e. non-
discrimination stipulated in Article III) to abolish such a preference. Concerning this point, please indicate the view of Singapore. 
We note that the same question was raised during Singapore’s application and negotiation for 
accession to the GPA.  Our reply, copied to memb ers of the Committee on GP, was that provisions 
under Article III.1(b) of the GPA allows us to extend the preferential treatment to other ASEAN 
countries as none of them is a party of the GPA.  This matter was treated as closed thereafter.  
IV TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(5) SERVICES (iii) Banking and insurance (WT/TPR/S/130, page 84, paragraph 52) 
In the initial offer of Singapore, the cross-border s upply (Mode 1) of reassu rance is committed to none 
of the limitations both on market access and on nati onal treatment.  However, we recognize that 
foreign companies providing reassurance, have ha d several conditions imposed upon them since 1
st of 
January 2004, such as authorization and maintenanc e of reinsurance deposits in Singapore. We also 
recognize that in the case of ceding to a foreign re insurance company more rate of liability reserves 
are required for a direct insurance company to be  deposited than in the case of ceding to a domestic 
reinsurance company under the introduction of ri sk-based capital regulation.   According to the 
Secretariat Report, the MAS policy on admission to  the reinsurance or captive insurance markets 
remains unchanged. However, we ar e concerned about the conformity of such regulations to the 
commitments under the GATS, particularly the limita tions of national treatment in the latter case.  
Concerning these points, please indicate the view of Singapore. 
In recent years, several major rei nsurers have seen their ratings  downgraded by international 
agencies.  Many reinsurance groups have had to rai se funds to replenish their weakened capital 
bases.  These developments indicate  increasing risks in the insuran ce sector and warrant supervisory WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 4  
 
 attention.  We support and recognise the efforts of  the International Association of Insurance 
Supervisors in developing a global approach to the re gulation of reinsurers. However, this is still 
work in progress and there is currently still a di verse range of approaches and practices in the 
regulation of reinsurers across various jurisdictions. It is against this backdrop that we introduced the 
cross border reinsurance authorisat ion framework to address the increasingly volatile operating 
environment.  
Under the framework, reinsurers  based overseas can continue to solicit business and collect 
premiums from Singapore registered insurers on ce they are authorized which entail meeting 
prudential requirements such as placing a reinsuran ce deposit with MAS, disclosing their authorised 
status to business parties in Singapore and filing annual  returns with the MAS. Such an authorisation 
framework to supervise cross border reinsurance is  a prudential measure that  is consistent with 
international standards of insurance supervision recommended by the International Association of 
Insurance Supervisors. The prudential requiremen ts are also consistent with Singapore’s 
commitments and rights under GATS and are similar to those found in other established insurance 
markets, such as the United States. 
The authorisation framework also does not ch ange the current position for insurers based in 
Singapore sourcing for reinsurance coverage from out side Singapore. They continue to enjoy the 
freedom to contract and place their reinsur ance programmes with overseas reinsurers, including 
those that are not authorised under the authorisation framework.  Separately, under the risk-based capital framework, we allow insu rers to set aside less capital when  they contract with reinsurers 
based in Singapore since the la tter are also subject to supervisory oversight by MAS. 
(viii) Professional services (WT/TPR/S/130, page 98, paragraph 92) In contrast to the accountancy services in which there are no nationality requirements, in legal services 
there are still restrictions on foreign lawyers. Please explain why such restrictions still remain in legal services. 
Since 1981, Singapore has a liberal and largely un regulated regime for foreign lawyers to set up law 
practice to supply offshore legal services.  The present conditions of ent ry are extremely liberal, 
except that foreign lawyers working in the foreign la w firms (FLFs) or Singapore law firms (SLFs) 
and Singapore lawyers working in FLFs may not pr actise Singapore law in Singapore.  Those foreign 
lawyers working in Joint Law Ventures (JLVs) w ho are registered with the Attorney-General’s 
Chambers to practise Singapore law in banking,  finance and corporate work after passing a 
prescribed qualifying examination a nd satisfying certain guidelines may practise Singapore law in 
those areas of Singapore law relating to banking, finance or corporate work. 
For foreign law practice, Singapore has a very liberal  policy.  Singapore welcomes FLFs to come to 
Singapore to practise home-country law, third-count ry law and international law.  Apart from 
registration, FLFs and foreign lawyers are free to practise home-country, third-country and 
international law.  As regards domestic law (host- country law) practice, this is currently restricted 
even within the domestic market, and will likewise conti nue to be so restricted for foreign lawyers.  In 
this regard, while FLFs are not permitted to employ  local lawyers to practi se local law, local law 
firms are permitted to employ foreign lawyer s to practise foreign law in Singapore. 
In view of Singapore's small domestic legal market , Singapore cannot cope with a huge influx of 
foreign lawyers.  Thus, under the current regime, a cl ear distinction is drawn between the practice of 
Singapore law and the practice of foreign law, even  for Singapore nationals.  A Singapore citizen who 
is qualified to advise on both local law and foreign la w must choose which law he or she wishes to  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
 practise when he or she works in a FLF and cannot  practise both Singapore law and foreign law in a 
FLF. 
QUESTIONS FROM COLOMBIA  
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 4) Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
1. In paragraph 17  of section iii) " other charges affecting imports " the Report from the 
Secretariat mentions that "under the Major Exporters  Scheme (MES), GST is deferred at the point of 
importation for exporters.  GST becomes payable onl y if the imported goods are sold domestically.  
According to the authorities, this scheme was introdu ced to alleviate the cash flow problems faced by 
exporters with significant exports  and imports.  MES status is granted by the Inland Revenue 
Authority of Singapore." 
Concerning the deferred payment of the GST, Colo mbia would like to know which are the conditions 
in which it is granted such deferral.  In other words, which is the maximum period allowed for the 
deferral and if such deferral implies some kind of  additional payment considering the cost of the 
money within the period granted? 
The conditions are as stated in footnote 10 of  Paragraph 17 (page 34).  The trader must be a 
registered GST trade, must import goods in the course of his/her business, export supplies must 
account for 51% or more of total supplies (i ncluding goods in transit and services), have a good 
accounting system, good compliance record as a GST payer with Singapore Customs, and as a 
property tax payer, and must be able to comply with  any other conditions applied by the Comptroller 
of GST (Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore). For more details of the scheme, please refer 
www.iras.gov.sg
 
There is no maximum period imposed and the GST trader is not required to compensate the 
Government for the opportunity cost in deferring the payment. 
2. In paragraph 25  of section v) " Import prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing " the Report 
from the Secretariat establishes th at "licensing may be automatic or non-automatic, depending on the 
product (Table AIII.2)".  Assessing table AIII.2 we  found an aggregate list of products subject to 
import license automatic or non-automatic. We would like to know if this is a permanent list or  if it is modified regularly?  Additionally, if 
possible, we are interested in having a detail list of  the kind of fresh fruits, ve getables, plants and plant 
products that required automatic and non-automatic import licensing or to know where we can consult 
such information? 
The list can be modified when there are changes in regulatory requirements of the controlling 
agencies. The changes will be published in the Government Gazette and notified to the WTO.  
Information on Singapore’s import requirements on f resh fruits, vegetables, plants and plant products 
are available on the Agri-Food and Veterina ry Authority’s website (www.ava.gov.sg
) 
3. Paragraph 40  of section vii) " Standards and sanitary and phytosanitary requirements " refers 
to technical regulations. 
We are interesting to know if Singapore has si gned Mutual Recognition Agreements between non-
government institutions and which has been your experience and usefulness of those agreements? WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 6  
 
 The Singapore Government has not signed any  Mutual Recognition Agreements with a non-
government organisation.  
4. In relation with the sanitary  and phytosanitary measures, paragraph 45  of section vii) 
mentions that "meat and meat pr oducts may only be imported from speci fic farms or establishments in 
specific countries" and frozen beef, mutton, and poultry may be imported only from a limited number 
of countries with accredited establishments.   
In that regard, Colombia would like to know wh ich are the procedures required by Singapore to 
submit an application for the accreditation of a country  or an establishment and which is the criteria to 
be accepted as an AVA accredited establishments? 
As meat and poultry products are considered "h igh risk" items, all meat and poultry products 
exported to Singapore would have to be approved by  AVA. Singapore's procedu res are consistent with 
international standards and practice.  Applica tions from export slaughterhouses or meat processing 
plants would only be considered after the exporti ng country has been approved to export meat and 
meat products to Singapore. The applications w ould have to be submitted through the Veterinary 
Authority of the exporting country.  If the documen tary review of the submission is satisfactory, AVA 
will then conduct an inspection visit of the slaughter house or plant.  Thereafter, the decision to grant 
approval for the slaughterhouse/plant to expor t their product to Singapore will be made. 
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM CANADA
 
Report by the Government (WT/TPR/S/130 ) 
(2) Trade and Economic Policy; paragraphs 11, 18 and 29 
1. Canada appreciates the role Singapore has played in advocating for liberalization of 
telecommunications services by other countries and in fully liberalizing its own telecommunications 
sector in April 2000, which we understa nd was two years ahead of schedule. 
2. In liberalizing the telecommunications sector , Singapore lifted all foreign equity limits in 
relation to public telecommunications services. Does  Singapore intend to bind this liberalization by 
removing these restrictions from its GATS Schedule of Specific Commitments? 
Singapore made its GATS commitments on basic telecommunications in 1997.  Singapore has 
completely lifted its foreign shareholding caps in  April 2000, when the telecommunications market 
was fully liberalised. Singapore will continue to par ticipate actively in GATS negotiations to seek 
substantial improvements in GATS telecom co mmitments from all WTO members and is ready to 
reciprocate accordingly. 
3. A third component of the liberalization was the introduction of a Telecommunications 
Competition Code in September 2000. 
a. Is the new code presently in force? 
The Code has been in force since September 2000.   IDA is currently reviewing the Code and has 
issued a draft Code (2004) for a second round of p ublic consultation. IDA plans to complete our 
review and issue the revised Code (2004) by the second half of this year. 
b. To what extent does it aim to implement the principles of the WTO Reference Paper?  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
 The Telecom Competition Code provides a regulatory framework to facilitate the rapid entry of new 
entrants and to prevent abuse of dominant market po wer. The Code aims to implement and in some 
cases exceed the competitive safeguards and int erconnection obligations of the WTO Reference 
Paper. 
c. The WTO Secretariat Report notes that the code is to be reviewed every three years and that 
the first review is presently underway. What areas have been identified in this review? 
Areas of review include the definition and class ification of dominance, tariff filing requirements, 
interconnection obligations and requirements. De tails are on the website www.ida.gov.sg 
In general, any proposed revisions will aim to result  in less regulation in market segments that are 
effectively competitive and to enha nce competition in segments that have yet to achieve effective 
competition. 
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/130)  
III. Trade policies and practices by measure;  (2) Measures direc tly affecting imports; 
(vii) Standards and sanitary and phytosanita ry requirements; (d) labelling; paragraph 50 
4. Canada notes that Singapore is in the process of developing regulations  with regards to the 
labelling of GM food.  Canada requires labe lling where the foods have undergone significant 
nutritional or compositional changes, or where ther e may be health and safety concerns, such as 
allergenicity.   The Standards Council of Canada h as recently adopted the Canadian General Standards 
Board standard for the voluntary labelling of geneti cally modified organisms.  This standard was 
developed by various stakeholders  (including consumer groups, government, producers, processors 
and growers) over the past five years, in an effo rt to develop a meaningful standard to be used 
voluntarily by industry to indicate to consumers wh ich foods have or have not been produced using 
genetically modified organisms.   This standard is not a regulation or a law (i.e. it is not mandatory); it 
is voluntary and as such, industry can choose to la bel products to indicate the presence or the absence 
of GMOs – whichever way it believes its consumers will prefer.   Canadian laws regarding truthful 
and "not misleading" advertising will apply to label claims made by industry, which choose to use this 
standard. Canada has attached a copy of the vol untary labelling standard for your information. 
III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure; (4) Measures Affecting Production And 
Trade; (i) Industrial policy; (c) Statutory b oards and public-sector companies; Government 
linked companies (GLCs); paragraph 90 
5. Canada is pleased to see Singapore’s efforts to increase transparency of its GLCs, as 
demonstrated by the publication of Temasek’s first Annual Report in July or August 2004. What type 
of information will be included in this re port? Canada also notes that in the USSFTA 
(Article 12.3.2.g), Singapore has committed to pro ducing reports on its GLCs. Will this information 
be made public to all WTO Members? 
Temasek’s annual report will present an overview of  the activities and financials of Temasek and its 
companies.  As the annual report is still work-in-pr ogress, the specific types of information that will 
be included in the report have yet to be finalized. 
A list of GLCs will be made publicly available on the Ministry of Industry and Trade’s website 
(www.mti.gov.sg ) by end of the year.   WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 8  
 
 IV. Trade Policies by Sector; (5) Services; (iii) Banking & Insurance; (a) Overview; 
paragraph 33 
6. Can Singapore please define the criterion "mos t activities are carried out in Singapore," as 
well as provide information on what other criteria co mpanies seeking incentives are assessed against? 
7. In order to qualify for these tax incentives, mu st a foreign firm carry out the bulk of its 
worldwide activities in Singapore?  If so, how does this afford domestic and foreign firms an equal 
opportunity to qualify for incentives when the vast majority of foreign firms operating in Singapore also carry out bigger operations in their home jurisdiction and other countries? 
8. Could Singapore please provide a breakdown of how many foreign-owned and domestic firms 
have benefited from this incentive program? 
The tax incentives that are offered by Singapore to  financial institutions are aimed at encouraging 
development of specific high value-added financial sector  activities.  To be eligible for each of these 
tax incentives, a financial institution has to carry on a substantive level of activity in the specified 
financial activities in Singapore.  However, a financia l institution would not be required to perform 
the bulk of its global operations in Singapore in order to qualify for these tax incentives.   
Financial institutions in Singapore, whether domestic or foreign-owned, will be subject to the same 
set of qualifying criteria for any particular in centive scheme for which they are applying.  A 
significant number of foreign-owned companies have b een awarded different types of financial sector 
tax incentives.  For example, 86% of the existi ng Financial Sector Incentive Scheme - Bond Market 
award recipients and 98% of the existing Appro ved Finance and Treasury Ce ntres are foreign-owned 
companies. 
IV. Trade Policies by Sector; (5) Services;  (iv) Telecommunications; paragraph 56 
9. Singapore’s bilateral agreements (A NZSCEP, JSEPA, ESFTA, SAFTA, USSFTA) include 
commitments for telecommunications services that go  beyond its present commitments in the GATS.  
Does Singapore contemplate making similar co mmitments in the current round of GATS 
negotiations?   
Singapore will continue to participate actively in GA TS negotiations to seek substantial improvements 
in telecommunications and computer and related services from all WTO members and are ready to 
reciprocate accordingly. 
10. Canada is pleased to see that Temasek a nnounced a reduction in its shareholding of SingTel 
by up to 5%, from 67%.  Has the government already reduced its holdings?  If not, what is the timeline for implementation? 
Temasek's current shareholding in SingTel is app roximately 65%. This was reduced from 67% 
following Temasek's direct sale of  SingTel shares in Jan 04. Together with  the direct share sale, 
Temasek also launched an offering of SingTel E xchangeable Notes ("Notes"). Notes-holders have up 
to 2009 to exercise their exchange rights under the No tes. If, by 2009, all the Notes-holders exercise 
their exchange rights in full, Temasek's shareholding in SingTel would be further reduced to around 
61.5%. 
IV. Trade Policies by Sector; (5) Services; (iv) Telecommunications; Paragraph 57 and
 III. 
Trade Policies and Practices by Measure; (4) Measures Affecting Production And Trade; (i)  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
 Industrial policy; (c) Statutor y boards and public-sector companies; Government linked 
companies (GLCs); paragraph 87 
11. Could Singapore please explain how it implemen ts its obligations as stated in the WTO 
Reference Paper for basic telecommunications with  regards to an independent regulator? Has it 
incurred any particular challenges given the extent  of the government’s holdings in Singapore’s three 
largest operators? (Temasek directly or indirect ly has major shareholdings in the three largest 
operators: 67.5% in SingTel; 50.5% in StarHub; and 35% in MobileOne). 
The InfoComm Development Authority of Singapor e (IDA) is a statutory board that oversees the 
promotion, development and regulation of the ICT sector in Singapore.    
Singapore’s experience is not unusua l.  Many economies continue to  have government holdings in 
their large telecommunications operators.  We ha ve not experienced any particular challenges arising 
from the government's holdings in the 3 teleco mmunication operators.  IDA treats all operators, 
whether local, foreign or government-own ed, in a non-discriminatory fashion.  
12. Canada is pleased to see that there are no limits on the number of licenses that can be granted 
by the IDA for telecommunications services except tho se necessitated by technical constraints.  When 
the number of licenses is constrained by issues su ch as availability of spectrum, how does the IDA 
award the licenses?  Does it have standard selection criteria? Are these criteria publicly available?  
IDA has used a market-based approa ch to allocate spectrum for 3G, 2G and LMDS services. The 
selection criteria for these are publicly available on IDA's website. IDA has also recently sought 
industry comments on our proposed market-based allo cation approach for the deployment of wireless 
broadband technologies. 
Singapore’s Services Schedule  
Telecommunications Services 
13. Singapore does not appear to have made co mmitments for a number of telecommunications 
services (telex services; telegraph services; facsimile services; enhanced/value-added facsimile services, incl. store and forward, store and retr ieve; and code and prot ocol conversion). Does 
Singapore contemplate making such commitments in the current round of GATS negotiations? 
Computer and Related Services 
14. Singapore has not made any commitments for several computer and related services 
(consultancy services related to the installation of  computer hardware; and software implementation 
services). Does Singapore contemplate making commitmen ts for these services in the current round of 
GATS negotiations? 
Singapore will continue to participate actively in GA TS negotiations to seek substantial improvements 
in telecommunications and computer and related services from all WTO members and are ready to 
reciprocate accordingly. WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 10  
 
 QUESTIONS FROM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE Customs Procedures
 
We understand that Singapore Customs has in pl ace a risk management process.  An important 
element in risk management is information. 
- Does Singapore have plans to collect advance manifest data on all cargoes passing through the 
port and airport, including transshipment and transit cargoes? 
We do not plan to collect advance manifest data an d are currently using available information for 
risk-assessment. 
Transhipment of controlled goods must be decla red to the relevant Singapore controlling agencies 
due to either health or security reasons, or certain international convention obligations.  
Transhipment cargo information is therefore avail able for risk profiling by different authorities.  The 
degree of checks on such shipments will depend on the level of risk posed by the products as well as 
the reliability and timeliness of intelligence received. 
Tariffs  
We welcome Singapore’s call for WTO members to increase bindings to 100 percent and to narrow 
the variance between the ceiling bindings and the applied rates as far as possible. 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Requirements  
We commend Singapore’s approach to keep regulations  on agricultural biotech nology science-based.   
We understand that during recent incidents of avia n influenza (AI) in some U.S. states, Singapore 
suspended imports of poultry from all regions of the United States.    
- In the event of future outbreaks, are Singapore’s authorities willing to limit import 
suspensions to only those areas affected by AI outbreaks? 
We are prepared to consider limiting import suspen sions to only those areas affected by avian 
influenza outbreak, as long as the relevant author ities can demonstrate their ability to contain the 
disease within the infected areas. 
Tax Incentives  
The Secretariat report presents an overview of progr ams that provide tax concessions and exemptions 
to Singapore’s businesses.  We would be inter ested in learning more about these programs. 
- Are the benefits under the Global Trader Pr ogramme (GTP) open to all companies and in 
every sector?  Could the representative of Singapore please explain if the tax incentives under this programme are tax ex emptions or reductions? 
Yes, the GTP is open to all companies and in every sector.  It provides for a reduced tax rate.  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
 - The Secretariat report refers to Acertain sectors@ (page 57, paragraph 99) as continuing to 
receive tax incentives.  Could Singapore please provide further details as to which sectors 
receive these incentives? 
Singapore's tax incentives are transparent and bro ad-based so as to promote knowledge-based 
activities.  Although our incentives may be class ified sectorally, namely, Manufacturing, Services, 
Banking and Tourism, etc., this is done as th e needs for these broad secto rs may differ. The main 
considerations guiding the award of incentives ha ve always been higher value-added and innovation 
activities.  For further elaboration, please refer to the following sections of the Secretariat Report: 
"Legislation and Incentives" in Chapter II, "Incentiv es" in Chapter III, "Banking and Insurance" and 
"Tourism Services" in Chapter IV.  Periodically, we  will review if the incentive schemes put in place 
have met the desired objectives.    
Statutory Boards and Private Sector Companies  
It appears as though the share of the public sector (including statutory boards and government-linked 
companies) in the economy has re mained largely constant since 2000.   To date, the number of 
divestments has been rela tively small.   Our data suggests that publicly traded government-linked 
companies account for as much as 40 percent of total capitalization on the Singapore Exchange.    
- What are Singapore’s plans for further divestments?  We note that, while market conditions 
were given in the past as a reason for delaying  divestments, no significant divestments have 
occurred since early 2003, despite improvements in the market.    
Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister has articulated  the government’s position on divestment in a 
speech to Parliament: 
"Temasek will continue to consolidate and rationali ze its stable of companies.  It will divest those that 
are no longer relevant to its mission.  But this must be  at a right time, at a fair price, in a way which 
does not unsettle the market, and which ensures that the GLCs continue to be properly managed after 
divestment…There is no reason for the government to se ll off GLCs below their fair value, regardless 
of market conditions, by a specific deadline…" 
It is incorrect to say that there are no significant  divestments since early 2003.  From 2003 up till end 
Feb 2004, Temasek has made 12 divestments, including the complete divestment of CPG Corp and 
SingTel Yellow Pages: WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 12  
 
  
Company Sector Intial ownership Final ownership 
CPG Corp Construction & Maintenance 100% 0% 
SingTel Yellow Pages Search Services 100% 0% 
ECICS Credit Insurance and ECIC S Guarantee Financial 88% 0% 
Intraco Trading 23% 0% 
SingPost Postal Services 100% 31% 
International Factors Financial Solutions 56% 16% 
MobileOne Telecom & Media 35% 14% 
Sunningdale Precision Precision Engineering 27% 20% 
Autron Electronics Manufacturing Equipment 9% 4% 
Cosco Corp Ship Repair, Shipping 8% 5% 
OSIM Healthcare Products 5% 2% 
Hyflux Water Treatment 5% 3% 
The Temasek Charter outlines government policy on GLCs, noting two classes of GLCs in which it 
will continue to have an ownership role:  those which have potential for re gional or international 
growth and those deemed strategic. 
- How is the Temasek Charter consistent w ith the Economic Review Committee’s report on 
GLCs, which suggested a narrower focus on busi nesses that are strategic or where there is 
market failure? 
The Temasek Charter and Economic Review Committee’s report are consistent with each other.  In 
particular, the ERC noted that: 
o GLCs are natural candidates for interna tionalization given their size, depth of 
management and the competencies that they have built up over the years.  Temasek Holding’s key mission should be to grow GL Cs into globally competitive enterprises 
that are anchored in Singapore 
o Temasek Holdings should limit new investme nt to businesses with the potential to 
internationalise.  These are to be in new growth sectors where the private sector in 
Singapore is unable or unwilling to underta ke risks, such as large investment with 
long gestation periods. 
- Government officials serve on the boards of so me GLCs.  What is the rationale for this 
practice, given the potential for conflicts of interest? 
The Companies Act requires all directors, whether in the public or private sector, to comply with 
requirements and responsibilities and to declare if they have any potential conflict of interest.  
Directors on the board of GLCs are not exempted from  this requirement.  Public sector directors only 
account for less than 10% of the total of 570 directorship positions on the boards of the key Temasek companies.  Nevertheless, to encourage greater transparency and accountability of its companies, 
Temasek has been encouraging the GLCs to ha ve more independent private sector directors.  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
 Intellectual Property Rights – Enforcement  
The U.S. applauds Singapore's efforts to enhance its  IPR regime and enforcement to match global best 
practices.  The expansion of staff at the Intellect ual Property Rights Branch (IPRB) of the Singapore 
Police has been especially noteworthy, as has the pol icy of more intensive border checks, which have 
detected infringing products. 
We understand that illegal copying is  often undertaken on a print-to-order basis to avoid stockpiling.  
But purchases authorized by rights ho lders for the purpose of investigating infringement activities are 
difficult because the Court authorities apparently have  held that, by undertaking such purchases, the 
copyright owners consented to the illegal activity.    
- As Singapore amends its Copyright Act, does Singapore have any plans to include provisions 
that would state that such purchases made with in certain parameters (for example, purchases 
made as part of efforts to enforce the copyri ght owner's rights) do not qualify as consent by 
the copyright owner? 
As in all countries, the copyright owners must  make a reasonable case before they can obtain a search 
warrant.  Instead of furnishing the "trap" purchases to the Courts, copyright owners have been able to 
obtain search warrants based on their reports on th eir observations of the photocopy shops and their 
customers.  Singapore understands that the Associa tion of American Publishers has successfully done 
so, twice.  
It would be useful if Singapore could clarify its enforcement powers with respect to illegal 
photocopying and transshipment/transit tr ade in infringing works.      
- Is the IPRB prepared to seize infringing items during a raid on a photocopy shop, even if the 
original works are not included in the warrant list?    
Since last year IPRB has seized items that were not included in the warrant, if the right holders are 
present at the crime scene to identify the 'infringi ng' products. In the latest raid held with the 
Association of American Publishers, IPRB seized num erous articles that were not in the warrant. In 
fact, the seizure was ev en larger than those indicated in the warrant . 
- What procedures does Singapore have in place to detect transshipments or transit trade in 
infringing products?  Does Singapore require ocean or air carriers to report manifest data on 
all cargoes handled by or passing through the port? 
Singapore is a major transhipment and transit point  for sea and air cargo.  Singapore's port 
operations are highly automated and complex, given the large volume of cargo handled at the ports. 
The state-of-the-art systems allo ws its port operators to identify and pin-point the exact location of 
any container in the free trade zones, if need be. The degree of checks on shipments that are 
transhipped or in transit will depend on the level of risk posed  by the products as well as the 
reliability and timeliness of intelligence received. 
In addition, shipping lines are required to submit regular Manifest Reconciliation Statements to 
Singapore Customs to indicate whether their car goes are meant for transhi pment, import or export 
purposes. These statements are reconciled against im port and export records to help ensure that there 
are no false application of import and export perm its for transit or transhipment containers.  
Singapore Customs also systematically selects import/ export permits on a risk profile basis, to verify 
the validity of declarations in the permits. WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 14  
 
 The piracy of mobile telephony content - such as images, video and ring tones - has affected some 
rights owners, and is likely to grow in the future. 
- What procedures are in place to ensure that  services-based telecommunications licenses are 
cancelled for those offering ring tones and other content that are found to be infringing?    
It is inappropriate to cancel a telecommunications  licence of the operator, for a supposed act of 
copyright infringement.  Rights holders’  remedies lie in the Copyright Act. 
- What procedures are in place to educate t hose offering such services of their duties and 
responsibilities to respect IPR? 
IPOS has in place a programme to educate the public, including service providers and consumers on 
the importance of respecting intellectual property rights.  
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
Banking
 
While the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has removed the 40 percent de jure  shareholding 
limit on local banks, we noted in the Secretariat’s re port that a policy remains in effect prohibiting a 
foreign bank from taking a controlling stake in a local bank. 
- Given that Singapore banks have benefited from more liberal foreign market access in 
banking abroad (such as the purchase by DBS Bank of a controlling share in a Hong Kong 
bank in 2001, and the recent purchase by UOB Bank of a controlling stake in a Thai bank), would Singapore permit a similar acquisition by a foreign bank of a Singaporean bank? 
MAS is prepared to approve significant stakes by foreign parties in our local banks, provided three 
conditions are met: (1) the foreign party must br ing on board specialised skills, new technologies or 
business strategies; (2) the foreign party must  be a sound and well-managed entity; and (3) the 
Singapore character of the bank must be retained .  It should be noted that unlike most other 
jurisdictions, Singapore has only three local banks.  It would therefore be prudent for Singapore to 
develop and maintain strong local banks that can underpin the stability of the financial system and 
can be counted on to act as stabilisers for the fi nancial system should there be systemic shocks to the 
economy. 
Telecommunications
 
We commend the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) for its efforts to ensure effective 
competition in the telecommunications sector, incl uding through efforts to update the Competition 
Code and measures to ensure that local leased lin es are available at a reasonable cost from dominant 
providers. 
We are concerned that a Decision by the IDA to subject the dominant licensee’s wholesale price of 
local-leased circuits to regulation, taken in Decemb er 2003, remains stayed, given an appeal lodged by 
the dominant licensee with the Ministry of Communications.    
- What is the status of this appeal? What is the timeframe for a final decision? 
Under the Telecommunications Act, any telecommu nications licensee aggrieved by a decision by the 
IDA, may appeal to the Minister. In view of the appeal, IDA has stayed its decision pending the  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
 outcome of the Minister’s decision on the appeal.  A final decision will be made less than one month 
from now.  
- Has Singapore defined criteria for "staying" an IDA appeal? Could the transparency of this 
process be improved? 
Appeals by an aggrieved party do not automatically st ay the implementation of an IDA decision. Stays 
are done on a case-by-case basis and after caref ul and detailed consideration by IDA of the 
implication of proceeding with the implementatio n of a decision pending appeal.  Decisions are 
usually stayed pending appeal when they are likely to have severe conse quences on the industry if 
implemented without clarity on the outcome of the appeal.  For example, if other industry players act on the basis of a decision that is not stayed pending an appeal, they may incur losses should IDA’s 
decision be reversed. 
Legal Services
 
The Secretariat report notes that Singapore maintains extensive restrictions on the provision of legal 
services.  Foreign firms operate in Singapore, but they can only practice offshore law.   They cannot 
practice Singaporean law (even if they hire Singa porean lawyers); cannot give advice and prepare 
contracts using Singaporean law; and cannot litigate in Singapore’s courts.   These restrictions extend 
to Singaporean lawyers who work for foreign law firm s.   Singaporean lawyers that join a foreign law 
firm in Singapore must give up their Singaporean  law-practicing certificates in order to accept a 
partnership in, for instance, a U.S. law firm.  
While a limited number of foreign firms have been  approved by the Attorney General’s Chambers 
(AGC) to enter into "Joint Law Ventures" (JLV) or "Formal Law Alliances" with local law firms, 
there are lengthy and discriminatory criteria for forming such entities and the scope of practice is 
limited.  
Although we support Singapore’s interest in maintaining a high level of quality it would seem 
possible to achieve these objectives through other m eans that are less discriminatory and do not 
involve such direct intervention in the market.  In particular, we have difficulty understanding how 
restricting the ability of Singaporean lawyers workin g in a foreign law firm from practicing local law, 
especially commercial and financial law, c ontributes to public policy objectives.   
- In this context, is Singapore giving active consideration to liberalizing measures concerning 
association with and hiring of Singaporean lawyers? 
Singapore cannot find the remark "Singapore maintains extensive restrictions on the provision of 
legal services" in the Secretariat report. 
Since 1981, Singapore has had a liberal and largely un regulated regime for foreign lawyers to set up 
law practice to supply offshore legal services.  Th e present conditions of entry are extremely liberal.  
There are presently no restrictions imposed on fo reign lawyers and foreign law firms (FLFs) in 
respect of their practice of home-country law, in ternational law and third-country law.  The only 
restriction which is necessary given our small domes tic legal services market is in respect of the 
practice of host-country or Singapore law. 
In 1997, the Government set up a multi-sectoral committee called the Legal Services Review 
Committee (LSRC) headed by the Attorney-General to  review Singapore's strategic legal needs in the 
financial sector, and the conditions under which FLFs  and foreign lawyers could be allowed to WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 16  
 
 operate in Singapore, so as to ensure Singap ore's competitiveness in financial services.  The 
membership of the LSRC incl uded representatives from local and offshore law firms, banks and 
MNCs. The LSRC examined the proposal to allo w Singapore lawyers working in a FLF to practise 
local law, especially commercial and financial law.  The LSRC recognised that Singapore law is not 
critical to Singapore’s growth as a financial centr e and concluded that Singa pore law services are 
irrelevant to the future growth of offshore financ ial services, unless Singapore law is accepted as the 
preferred governing law for offsho re financial transactions.  However, the LSRC recognized that 
there is a need for Singaporean lawyers to provid e efficient and effective legal services for the 
Singapore law segment of cross-border financial transactions.  Hence, the LSRC recommended 
collaboration between offshore law firms and Sing apore law firms (SLFs) through vehicles such as 
the Joint Law Ventures (JLVs) and Formal Law Alliances (FLAs).   
The LSRC thus recommended that the policy and regulatory framework which draws a demarcation 
between the practice of foreign law and the prac tice of Singapore law be maintained.  Foreign 
lawyers working in FLFs or SLFs and Sing apore lawyers working in FLFs may not practise 
Singapore law in Singapore.  However, those Singapo re lawyers working in the JLVs who are treated 
the same as foreign lawyers working in the JLVs who had passed the prescribed qualifying 
examination, complied with all the rules and guideli nes and are registered with the Attorney-General 
Chambers can practise Singapore law in those areas of Singapore law relating to banking, finance or 
corporate law.   
The 1999 Report of the LSRC stated that the full im pact of the current legal services regime can only 
be evaluated over a period of time and any furth er or significant changes were to take place after 
5 years from the year 2000.  The next review will be on or after 2005. 
Architecture and Engineering
 
Singapore requires that persons have a minimum of 12 months to two years of practical experience in 
Singapore in order to be eligible for registration as an  architect or engineer in Singapore, and that the 
chairman and at least a majority of the board of directors of limited architectural (or engineering) 
corporations must be professional architects (or engineers).  
- Do authorities in Singapore have the authority to  waive the practical experience requirement?  
If so, what are the grounds for considering such a waiver? 
- Would Singapore consider waiving this requirement on the basis of reciprocity, as long as the 
individual is working under another architect / engineer in Singapore who has such experience? 
- While we welcome relaxation of the nationality rule concerning the board of directors of a 
corporation supplying architectural services, the "majority" requirement appears to be discriminatory.   Does Singapore have any plan s to eliminate this requirement, as it has done 
for land surveyors? 
The Board of Architects (BOA) and the Professional Engineers Board (PEB) are the relevant 
authorities regulating the practice of architect ural and professional engineering services in 
Singapore.  Both BOA and PEB do not have the authority to waive the practical experience requirement. Currently, if a person does not have th e required practical experience in Singapore, he 
can still be eligible for registration as an architect or professional engineer if he has 10 years of practical experience outside Singapore.  BOA and PEB will be willing to consider waiving this 
requirement on the basis of reciprocity, as long as the individual is working under the supervision of a  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 17 
 
 
 registered architect or professional engineer. Neither BOA nor PEB has any immediate plans to 
waive the "majority" board of director requirements. 
Audio-visual  
Under Part VI of the Singapore Broadcasting Aut hority Act (Cap 297), no person can install or 
operate certain broadcasting apparatuses on whic h broadcasting services are received, including 
television receivers and television receive-only satellite dishes, except under license from the Media 
Development Authority.   
- Does Singapore have plans to liberalize restric tions on television receive -only satellite dishes? 
- What rationale does Singapore have for maintaining these restrictions? 
There are no plans to modify existing policy on Television Receive-Only satellite dishes.  Singapore’s 
policy to disallow the installation of satellite dishes is to keep out undesirable content at odds with our 
multi-racial and multi-religious society, and to prevent the influencing of Singapore politics from a 
distance.  It is even more important now given the s ecurity challenges that the region faces.  It should 
be noted that this policy does not leave Singapo re consumers deprived of programming variety since 
this is available through cable TV. 
Note:  The former Singapore Broadcasting Authority  (SBA) Act (Chapter 297) is now the Media 
Development Authority Act (Chapter 172). The Part VI of  the SBA Act referred to is now Part V of the 
Broadcasting Act (Chapter 28). 
Update on Singapore’s FTA Initiatives (Verbal question) 
To date, Singapore has concluded bilateral FTAs with 6 partners – New Zealand, Japan, European 
Free Trade Association, Australia, the United St ates and Jordan.  The following FTAs are still under 
negotiation – Canada, Republic of Korea, India,  New Zealand and Chile (trilateral FTA), Panama, 
and Mexico.  Singapore, as part of ASEAN, is cu rrently negotiating FTAs with China, India and 
Japan. 
QUESTIONS FROM ARGENTINA  
II. TRADE POLICY REGIME:  FRAMEWORK AND OBJECTIVES 
(5) Foreign Investment Regime (ii) Legislation and incentives 
Question 1 
Paragraph 34 of Chapter II mentions that to a ttract foreign investment, Singapore offers non-tax 
incentives.  The paragraph also mentions that ince ntives are provided for certain service sectors.  
Could Singapore clarify and provide details on this respect:  what kind of incentives are these?  Which 
sectors benefit from them?  
Singapore's tax incentives are transparent and bro ad-based so as to promote knowledge-based 
activities.  Although our incentives may be class ified sectorally, namely, Manufacturing, Services, 
Banking and Tourism, etc., this is done as th e needs for these broad secto rs may differ. The main 
considerations guiding the award of incentives ha ve always been higher value-added and innovation 
activities.  For further elaboration, please refer to  the following sections of the Secretariat Report: 
"Legislation and Incentives" in Chapter II, "Incenti ves" in Chapter III, "Banking and Insurance" and WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 18  
 
 "Tourism Services" in Chapter IV.  Periodically, we  will review if the incentive schemes put in place 
have met the desired objectives.   
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE Question 2 
Paragraph 3 of Chapter III of the Secretariat Report states that Singapore maintains an active industrial 
policy "implemented mainly in the form of a wide  array of tax concessions and holidays, especially 
relating to certain sectors".  Coul d Singapore explain what kind of concessions are these and which 
products benefit from them?  
The "tax concessions and holidays" are listed w ithin Chapter III of the Secretariat Report, 
particularly under section (ii) (a). 
(2) Measures directly affecting imports 
Question 3 
Although most of the tariffs applied by Singapore are ad valorem , Singapore levies tariffs on some 
products.  Could Singapore specify why specific tariffs  are applied?  Does Singapore plan to convert 
them into ad valorem tariffs?   
If Members are willing and able to agree upon a me thodology to convert specific rates into ad 
valorem rates, Singapore will not object to conver ting our specific rates into ad valorem ones. 
Question 4 
The Secretariat Report (Chapter III (1) (2)) states that  rice is subject to import licensing for reasons of 
maintaining "price stability".  Could Singapore explain how this price stability is reached?  
Question 5 
The Secretariat Report mentions that ordinary li cences are granted to import high-quality rice.  Could 
Singapore indicate if there are any quantitative restrictions with resp ect to tonnes of rice imported 
under these licenses?  
Licensed importers of rice are required  to maintain a stipulated level of stockpile rice in addition to 
their trading stocks, which is meant for serving th e domestic needs of the market. In the event of 
escalating prices as a result of shortages in rice,  the Singapore Government can allow importers to 
release their stockpile rice to increase supply to the market, thereby maintaining a certain level of 
price stability.  
Being a free market economy and a non-produci ng country of rice, there are no quantitative 
restrictions with respects to the maximum amount of rice in tonnes that can be imported into 
Singapore. Imports are driven mainly by market demand. 
QUESTIONS FROM AUSTRALIA
 
- Mutual recognition of professional qualificati ons and registration procedures will promote 
business mobility and encourage greater comp etition.  In relation to engineering 
qualifications, we would welcome a progress repor t on Singapore’s plan to become a full  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 19 
 
 
 signatory to the Washington Accord.  We also wish to encourage Singapore to participate in 
the APEC Engineers Register. 
Singapore had been conferred provisional membership status by Washington Accord in June 2003.  
As the award of provisional status by Washingt on Accord does not imply a guarantee of the granting 
of full signatory status, Singapore is making all the necessary arrangements to ensure readiness for 
full signatory status by June 2005. Singapore is al so making arrangements to submit an application to 
maintain an APEC Engineer Register to the APEC Engineer Co-ordination Committee for acceptance 
in June 2005.   
- Australia is pleased that all Facilities Based Operators (FBOs) will be required to ensure 
interconnection interoperability and access will a ll telecommunications licensees.  However, 
we note that in practice, new entrants are s till experiencing delays and difficulties in securing 
access to the Singapore telecommunications sector.  We would welcome advice on how Singapore proposes to resolve these problems. 
We believe the statement "in practice, new en trants are still experiencing delays and difficulties in 
securing access to the Singapore telecommunications sector" is an inaccurate reflection of the 
situation in Singapore. Since 2000 when Singapore fully liberalised its telecommunications market, 
over 30 operators have been granted FBO licens es, and over 600 operators have obtained Services 
Based Operator (SBO) licenses. Fr om our experience, these operators have generally been able to 
gain quick and easy access into the market, incl uding getting their licence, establishing 
interconnection and access arrangements, rolling out their networks and services and commencing 
commercial operations.   
Our Telecommunications Competition Code has been crafted specifically to facilitate quick entry of 
new entrants in the market.  On average, new entrants who submit full and complete licence 
applications have been able to receive their FBO  licences within 8 weeks and SBO licences within 
4 weeks. Interconnection under the Reference Interconnection Offer (RIO) and access to 
Interconnection Related Services (IRS) follow strict timelines set out in the RIO.  
- Business prefers to operate in an environm ent where they can expect predictability and 
transparency in the government decision maki ng process.  Australian business has expressed 
concerns about the lack of transparency in  the implementation of government regulations 
relating to the issuing of employment passes to former Singapore citizens, the awarding of government scholarships, and the recognition of overseas qualifications.  We would be 
interested in the Singapore Government’s responses to these concerns.  We would also 
encourage Singapore to establish more streamlin ed and transparent procedures in these areas. 
Singapore agrees that a predictable and transparent op erating environment is essential to businesses.  
For this reason, Singapore promot es a pro-business environment by cutting red tape and removing 
obstacles to enterprise.  In 2004, the IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook ranks Singapore first for 
Government Efficiency.  Singapore is ranked first  in the EIU Country Forecast for having the best 
business environment in Asia Pacific for 2004-2008.  We constantly review our  policies to make sure 
that government rules and regulations remain supportive of a pro-enterprise environment.  
- Australia queries Singapore’s requirements for fo reign law firms to form joint law ventures 
with local Singaporean firms.  It seems some of these joint law ventures are not delivering commercial benefits for either Singaporean or fore ign firms.  We would wish to suggest that 
Singapore consider abolishing the JLV scheme and adopting a more hospitable regulatory 
model that would benefit both foreig n and local law firms and lawyers. WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 20  
 
 The Joint Law Venture (JLV) scheme seeks to in tensify collaboration between foreign law firms 
(FLFs) and Singapore law firms (SLFs) to provide a convenient and efficient mode for delivery of 
legal services in cross-border financial transactions.  As providers of a one-stop shop service, the 
existing JLVs are more cost-effective and effic ient service providers of cross-border financial 
transactions.  Foreign lawyers working in JLVs may al so qualify to practise Singapore law under the 
JLV scheme.  This meets the needs of those ins titutional clients who believe that a one-stop shop 
service is more efficient and costs less.   
The commercial and other benefits to both the FLF a nd the SLF in the JLV are clear.  When the JLV 
scheme was introduced in the year 2000, global law fir ms such as Allen & Overy, Baker & McKenzie, 
Freshfields, Linklaters and Lovells, with good track records in finance-related legal work applied for, 
and were granted licences to form JLVs with top SLFs .  All five of these top-ranking global law firms 
are, to-date, still in JLVs with their existing S LF partners.  In addition, another global law firm, 
Clifford Chance, entered into a JLV with a top SLF last year.  This speaks  for the strength of the 
existing JLV scheme, and the benefits to both the FLFs and SLFs in JLVs.  The annual evaluation 
reports submitted to the Attorney-General by JLVs  also show that both the FLFs and the SLFs have 
largely achieved their objectives and are deriving subs tantial benefits from their JLVs.  The existing 
JLVs have all reported that they are pleased with  the JLV scheme and the su ccess of their respective 
partnerships. 
QUESTIONS FROM HONG KONG, CHINA
 
Standards  
(WT/TPR/S/130, p. 39 - 40, Para. 38 and Tables III.4 and III.5) 
1. We note that about 75% of a lignable Singapore standards were aligned to international ones as 
at March 2003.  Yet, only around 34% of Singapor e standards were equiva lent to international 
standards in the same year, representing a decline of 2.5% from 2000.  We would be interested to 
know how Singapore would work to ensure that its st andards, particularly those which do not have a 
corresponding international standard for ali gnment, would not cause unnecessary obstacle to 
international trade. 
As explained in the Secretariat Report (WT/TPR/ S/130), Singapore finds it more meaningful to 
measure the alignment figures against Singapore’s standards that are alignable to international 
standards, rather than measuring agai nst Singapore’s whole universe of standards, for some of which 
no international standards are available.  
In line with the obligations as a WTO member country, Singapore adopts an open approach to 
announcing to the public standards that are be ing developed . These are posted on the standards 
website (www.standards.org.sg) for the public to view .  Besides this, all draft standards are subject to 
a 2-month public comment period before publication,  in line with WTO requirements. This is also 
announced through our standards website.  
The above practices have been put in place to support Singapore's transparent approach to 
international trade.  
Government Linked Companies  
(WT/TPR/S/130, p. ix, Paras. 15 & 16; and P. 52-55, Paras. 87-91) 
2. We are pleased to note that Singapore is  responding to the call for it to reduce its 
shareholdings in Government Linked Companies (G LCs).  We would like to know more about its  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 21 
 
 
 divestment plans and other plans in the medium and long terms. 
In principle, the Singapore government is prepared to fully divest its stakes in the GLCs other than 
those which are of strategic interest to our defe nce or economy.  Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister 
has articulated the government’s position on divestment in a speech to Parliament: 
"Temasek will continue to consolidate and rationali ze its stable of companies.  It will divest those that 
are no longer relevant to its mission.  But this must be  at a right time, at a fair price, in a way which 
does not unsettle the market, and which ensures that the GLCs continue to be properly managed after 
divestment…There is no reason for the government to se ll off GLCs below their fair value, regardless 
of market conditions, by a specific deadline…" 
Intellectual Property Right  
(WT/TPR/S/130, p. 67, Paras. 135 - 139) 
3. We note that Singapore does not keep statis tics on the number of court cases concerning IPR 
infringement.  Along with the number of arrests and the value of infringing goods, the number of cases 
put to the courts is also an useful indicator of a Member's efforts in combating IPR violation and of the 
seriousness of the problem.  We would like to know if  Singapore has any plans to review the need to 
keep such figures in the future, and if not, what is the rationale behind. 
Singapore does not find activity indicators meaningful and would rather use outcome indicators 
reflecting the true situation.  For example, in its annual survey, released April 2004, the Hongkong-
based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC ) ranked Singapore as Asia’ s safest place for 
intellectual property.  In its annual survey, PERC found that "foreign companies feel quite comfortable 
about being able to protect their intellectual propert y rights in Singapore."  This sense of security is 
attributed by the survey to Singapore’ s tightly policed and regulated environment, where IPR is 
concerned, and our legal system. 
Commitments under the GATS – MFN Exemptions  
(WT/TPR/S/130, p. 77, Para. 30) 
4. We note that Singapore has maintained a number  of MFN exemptions which, according to its 
Schedule, are "valid indefinitely".  While it is e xpected that these exemptions, and their duration for 
validity, would be reviewed in the upcoming MF N Exemption Review at the Council for Trade in 
Services, we would appreciate Singapore’s views on how it could ensure that these exemptions comply 
with paragraph 6 of the Annex on Article II Exemptions, which stipulates "[I]n principle, such 
exemptions should not exceed a period of 10 years". 
Singapore notes that the Council for Trade in Servi ces will be embarking on the review of the MFN 
exemptions at the June 2004 services cluster.  Si ngapore is still in the process of consulting our 
relevant authorities, with a view to participating actively and constructively in the MFN exemptions 
issue, as we do in other areas of services negotiations. 
Banking  
(WT/TPR/S/130, p. 81 & 82, Paras. 40 & 42) 
5. We note that the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has started issuing a new category 
of full banking licences to foreign banks, known as qualifying full bank licences, since 1999.  
However, Singapore has inscribed a moratorium on ne w licences for full and restricted banks in its 
GATS commitments.  Would Singapore please clarify whether the moratorium has been removed?  If WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 22  
 
 so, would Singapore consider reflecting the improvement in its initial offer? 
In 1999, MAS introduced a five-year banking liberalis ation programme to further open up access by 
foreign banks to Singapore’s domestic market.  The lib eralisation measures were phased in over time, 
to give the local banks time to pre pare themselves to meet the increa sed competition, and maintain the 
stability of our financial system.  MAS had announced that it would issue up to 6 Qualifying Full Bank 
(QFB) licences under the programme.  To date, all 6 QFB licences have already been awarded.  We 
will continue to monitor progress in the banking i ndustry before deciding on further liberalisation 
measures. As always, Singapore has participated  and will continue to participate actively and 
constructively in the DDA services negotiations. There has to be a balance of concessions or offers 
from all Members to facilitate a successful outcome in services.   
6. We note that the MAS removed the 40% share holding limit on local banks in 1999.  However, 
in Singapore's GATS Schedule of Specific Commitments, there is still a 40% limit on aggregate foreign ownership of each domestic bank's shares.  Would Singapore consider removing the limit from 
its GATS commitments so as to bring the commitments  in line with its actual regime and increase the 
predictability of its regime?   
As always, Singapore has participated and will conti nue to participate actively and constructively in 
the DDA services negotiations. There has to be a bal ance of concessions or offers from all Members 
to facilitate a successful outcome in services.   
7. We also note that a new 12% threshold on the acquisition of shares in banks by a single 
shareholder or shareholders was put in place, in a ddition to the existing 5% and 20% stakes.  However, 
in Singapore's GATS Schedule of Specific Commitments, it is inscribed that a single/related group of 
foreign shareholders can only hold up to 5% of a local bank's shares.  Would Singapore clarify whether 
the new 12% threshold applies to a single/related  group of foreign shareholders holding local bank's 
shares?  If so, would Singapore consider committi ng the new threshold in its initial offer?  
Acquisition of more than 5%, 12% and 20% shareholdi ng interest in a bank requires the approval of 
the Minister in charge of MAS.  These approval thresholds apply to any individual shareholder or 
group of associated shareholders, whether foreign or  local. The Minister in charge of MAS will 
approve increases in shareholding beyond 5 per cen t only in significant transactions that are 
considered beneficial to the bank and to Singapore.  Th is is a prudential measure to ensure that only 
fit and proper persons are allowed to have controlli ng stakes in a bank.  Approval to exceed the 5, 12 
or 20 per cent shareholding levels may be accompan ied by such conditions as the Minister considers 
necessary in order to prevent undue control and to  protect national interests. As always, Singapore 
has participated and will continue to participat e actively and constructively in the DDA services 
negotiations. There has to be a balance of concessi ons or offers from all Members to facilitate a 
successful outcome in services. 
Insurance
 
(WT/TPR/S/130, p. 83, Para. 50) 
8. We note that the 49% restriction on foreign ownership of local insurers was eliminated in 
2000.  We however note that in its services initial of fer, Singapore has not removed the 49% restriction 
inscribed for both life and non-life insurance serv ices.  Would Singapore consider removing the 
restriction from its GATS commitments so as to bring the commitments into line with its actual regime 
and increase the predictability of its regime? 
9. Besides, we note that both local and foreign shareholders who wish to hold 20% or more of  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 23 
 
 
 the shares in a locally incorporat ed insurance company, need MAS approval.  MAS approval is also 
required if a single shareholder wishes to become a substantial shareholder by acquiring 5% or more 
of the voting power.  However, we previously un derstood from Singapore that such limitation was no 
longer in place under the current regulatory regime.  We would appreciate clarification from Singapore 
in this respect. 
When MAS lifted the 49% foreign shareholding limit in  locally incorporated direct insurers in 2000, 
the requirement for MAS’ approval for acquisition of 5% (or more) of voting rights and 20% (or more) of shareholding interest by local or foreign parties were retained to ensure that only fit and 
proper persons assume control of locally-inc orporated insurers. Such a supervisory framework 
ensures that policyholders' interests are protected and is consistent with international standards of 
insurance supervision recommended by the Inter national Association of Insurance Supervisors. 
Port Services
 
(WT/TPR/S/130, p. 95, Para. 83) 
10. We note that Singapore has provided assistance, e.g. concession on port dues, discount on bills 
and handling charges etc., to ensure that ships conti nue to use the Port of Singapore.  This appears to 
constitute a kind of services subsidie s.  We would like to invite Singapore to share with us the 
rationale behind this policy and its views on whethe r the assistance would constitute a kind of services 
subsidies currently subject to discussions under GATS Article XV. 
The concessions are provided on a non-discriminatory basis.  We note that the Working Party on 
GATS Rules has not completed its negotiations on th e mandate provided in GATS Art XV (Subsidies).  
Among other issues, the WPGR has not yet agreed on  a definition of services subsidies.  Once these 
negotiations are completed, WT O Members will be in a better pos ition to ascertain whether their 
assistance schemes are in line with  the disciplines that may result from the Article XV negotiations.   
QUESTIONS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION  
Trade in goods  
A transparent and efficiently working tariffs regime  remains very important for enhancing trade and 
furthering economic development. While Singapore seem s to be doing well in all respects and to have 
a rather transparent trade-regime, the EC cannot help but to wonder why Singapore has merely bound 
69% of her tariffs. 
- When does Singapore intend to bind the remain ing parts of her tariffs, thereby increasing 
transparency and predictability of her tariff-regime?  
As part of the DDA negotiations, Si ngapore is prepared to increase our  level of tariff bindings. As 
part of the ongoing NAMA negotiations, Singapore has  already proposed that an objective should be 
for all Members to bind 100% of tariff lines for no n-agricultural products, to be in line with the 100% 
binding for agricultural products undertaken during the Uruguay Round. The actual rate at which the 
tariffs are bound, and to what extent this narro ws the differential between bound and applied rates 
will be dependent on the actual modality of tariff re duction to be adopted as part of the current round 
of negotiations. 
Singapore is a party to the so-called Integrated S ourcing Initiative (ISI) which a llows a specific list of 
goods (primarily components, IT and medical devices)  produced on the Indonesian islands of Bintang 
and Batam, where many US and Singaporean compan ies have manufacturing plants, to be sent to WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 24  
 
 Singapore and then the US with their origin consid ered as being Singaporean so as to receive duty-
free treatment under the FTA. 
- As this seems to be the first known case where a free-trade-agreement covers products that are 
not actually produced on the territories of the par ties to the agreement, the EC should like to 
enquire as to how this is going to work in practice? How is Singapore intending to prevent 
third countries’ including Indonesia from being involved in the arrangements, none of them 
having entered into obligations th rough a signing of the agreement? 
Under the USSFTA, 266 finished products, ma inly IT equipment and some medical and 
instrumentation equipment, qualify for the ISI initia tive.  For these products, which are already at 
zero duty on an MFN basis, the US will further waive the 0.21% Merchandise Processing Fee.  As no 
preferential duty is being accorded to these products, there is no specific origin criteria to be met for 
this initiative; they are "deemed" originating, so long as the port of exportation is Singapore. 
For all Singapore’s FTAs, verification procedures are in  place to ensure that only products deemed to 
be originating from either FTA partner, pursuant to  the negotiated terms of the FTA, is granted 
preferential treatment. The verification mechanism is administered by the authorities of the FTA 
partner, which is usually the customs authority. 
Trade in Services
 
The EC appreciates and recognises that Singapore has participated constructively and with an 
ambitious agenda in the exchange of requests a nd offers in the ongoing services-negotiations. In 
addition, the EC notes that progress has been made  in Singapore over the last decade by further 
liberalisation of a number of service-sectors.  
Professional Services  
- According to the report of the WTO Secretariat (paragraphs 88-93) Singapore is to a large 
extent open as regards legal services, though the report (paragraph 93) also states that 
Singapore does not at this stage have specific commitments in the sector. Can Singapore confirm that – if translated into specific comm itments – the current regime for legal services 
would resemble full commitments in Mode 3 for foreign and international law firms?  
As reported in the World Trade Organisation (WTO ) Trade Policy Review Re port, Singapore has not, 
at this stage, made any specific commitments in  the legal services sector at the WTO level.  
Notwithstanding, Singapore continues to mainta in a very liberal policy regarding the practice of 
home-country law, third-country law and international law.  
When Singapore undertakes a review of the current legal  services regime in or after 2005, the issue of 
making commitments at the WTO level, if any, may be studied.  Un til such time and at this juncture, 
Singapore is not able to speculate on how her commitments for legal services, if any, would be. 
Tourism
 
- What is the estimate of Singapore as concerns th e number of people working in the sector and 
the presence of foreign-owned companies in the tourism sector?   
The tourism-related manpower figures for 2002 are estimated at 150,000.  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 25 
 
 
 - Can Singapore inform in more detail about the existing plans to promote the tourism sector, 
and what measures the government is taking to ensure non-discrimination of foreign service suppliers? 
To revitalize and promote the tourism sector, Singapo re needs to re-position ourself as a destination, 
to reverse the decline in tourism receipts and to  create new jobs.  Singapore is seeking to re-position 
ourself as a great destination for families and for the premium travellers, to build on our strengths as 
a great place to do business and leverage on the stre ngths such as our quality infrastructure and 
connectivity.  Another initiative that Singapore will be  embarking on is to tap on  the millions of transit 
passengers at Changi airport, and make the whole of Singapore the transit lounge, rather than just 
Changi airport.  Further details on our tourism promotion can be found on the Singapore Tourism 
Board's website (www.stb.com.sg). 
Singapore does not discriminate against foreign ser vice suppliers in the tourism industry. 
- Can Singapore inform in more detail about the procedures for annual licences affecting 
tourism sector activities, and in particular wh at measures the government  is taking to ensure 
non-discrimination of foreign service suppliers? 
Annual licences affecting tourism sector activities w ill include the hotel, travel agencies and tourist 
guides licensing.  Please refer to the following we bsite for information on the licensing procedures: 
www.business.gov.sg Singapore does not discriminate against foreign servi ce suppliers in the tourism industry.  The 
purpose of licensing is to ensure quality. 
Financial and distribution services 
 
Financial and distribution services are of great im portance for furthering development and ensuring 
growth. In this light, the EC should like to ask the following questions: 
- According to the WTO Secretariats report (p aragraph 43) further liberalisation is announced 
for banking. Is there a timetable for the developm ent and entry into force of such liberalising 
measures? Does Singapore intend to bind such liberalisation under the GATS? 
In 1999, MAS introduced a five-year banking libera lisation programme to liberalise access by foreign 
banks to Singapore’s domestic market. As always,  Singapore has participated and will continue to 
participate actively and constructively in the DDA services negotiations. There has to be a balance of 
concessions or offers from all Members to fa cilitate a successful outcome in services.   
- According to the WTO Secretariats report (paragraph 50) the 49% limitation to commercial 
presence for foreigners for insu rance companies has been remo ved. Will there hereafter be 
any restrictions on ownership by foreigners? To  own more than 20% authorisation has so far 
been required from the government. What are the criteria for such authorisation?  
As stated in the Secretariat report, both local and foreign shareholders who wish to hold 5% and 20% 
or more of the shares in a locally incorporated insurance company need MAS approval.  The criteria 
for authorization can be found on the Monetary Author ity of Singapore’s website (www.mas.gov.sg)   
Transport is truly import for ensuring optimal co mpetition between foreign and domestic producers, 
but also for harvesting the benefits of trade liberal isation. In this light, the EC should like to ask 
Singapore the following questions: WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 26  
 
 - Can Singapore specify to which degree CPC 742 Freight forwarding/ Transport Agency 
activities are open to foreign investment?  
We believe the EC is referring to CPC 748: Frei ght Transport Agency Services and CPC 749: Other 
Supporting and Auxiliary Transport services) instead.   (CPC 742 refers to Storage and Warehousing 
Services).  Singapore has always allowed up to 100%  foreign ownership of any operating company in 
the logistics industry, except for certain limited a reas such as port operators, ground operators, bus 
services and domestic postal services (which most int ernational communities regard as logistics).  
- Can foreign operators setup a 100% owned trucking company in Singapore? And can such 
companies benefit from the bilateral transport agreements that Singapore has concluded with 
third countries (for freight transportation/inland trucking)?   
Yes, foreign operators can set up a 100% owned trucking company in Singapore.  Currently, 
Singapore does not have any bilateral road transport  agreements with third countries for freight 
transportation/inland trucking.  Howe ver, should Singapore enter into such agreements in the future, 
a 100% foreign owned trucking company would be able to benefit, as such bilateral agreements would 
cover Singapore-registered vehicles,  regardless of country of ownership of the entities in Singapore 
that own these vehicles. 
- Can Singapore update the information in the WTO Secretariats report (paragraph 74) on a 
tender for ground-handling service?  In add ition, can Singapore specify which ground-
handling services are covered by the tender? Are services not covered by the tender open to foreign investors? 
The open tender referred to in para 74 of the Secret ariat Report was closed on 30 April 2004.  The 
Civil Aviation Authority of Singap ore is currently evaluating the bids and expects to award the tender 
in July 2004.  The tender covers two categor ies of licences: one for ground handling (which 
encompasses 3 types of servi ces – passenger handling, apron handling and cargo handling) and 
another for flight catering services. 
Singapore’s trade policy
 
Singapore is a good example of a country whic h has developed and prospered greatly from 
liberalisation of trade and from the putting into place of a, in many respects, rather open trade-regime. 
Singapore is also an example of a country whic h has actively pursued multilateral trade talks, 
advocating for further liberalisation of trade and strengthening of rules.  
The EC has noted that Singapore has stepped up its  bilateral trade policy efforts and recently entered 
into preferential agreements with a number of develo ped countries. While the EC fully agrees with the 
view that preferential agreements can be used to  promote and foster co-operation in support of the 
multilaterally based trading system, the EC is also of the view that this instrument has to be applied 
carefully, taking into account the need for creating a level playing field.  
- How does Singapore perceive its use of the inst rument of preferential trade and how does this 
correspond to its support for the ongoing de velopment-round as well as the multilateral 
trading-system? 
Singapore is of the view that FTAs can serve as building blocks if they are WTO-plus (going beyond 
the WTO commitments), WTO-consistent (in coveri ng substantially all trade) and open to accession 
by members which are prepared to make the same commitments.  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 27 
 
 
 Our experience in negotiating FTAs has taught us a fe w lessons.  First, FTAs can be used to set high 
benchmarks.  FTAs serve as a sort of contro lled experiment, allowing us  to undertake deeper 
liberalisation with a partner.  Both of us learn in th e process.   As we get used to a higher level of 
liberalisation, these can serve as useful gui des in our multilateral negotiations.   
Second, the process of negotiating FTAs strengthens our  capacity to participate in negotiations at the 
multilateral level.  In doing our ‘homework’ on our  internal positions, as well as in seeking to 
understand our FTA partner’s regime and sensitivities,  we gain a deeper appreciation of the 
complexities and trade-offs.  
Third, our FTAs serve to stimulate broader regional  integration within ASEAN, and between ASEAN 
and our major partners.   ASEAN is working on an ASEAN Economic Community.  As a group, 
ASEAN is now negotiating FTAs with China, Japan,  India, and undertaking joint studies with South 
Korea. The US has an Enterprise for ASEAN Initiati ve while the EU has a Trans-Regional Europe 
ASEAN Trade Initiative. 
Fourth, we get into new areas involving the stren gthening of rules.  Strengthening the rules and 
regulatory framework allows us to gain fuller benefits of liberalisation.  
Finally, many of our FTAs also encompass a broad range of areas of cooperation.  Our FTA with 
Japan, for example, is a new age partnership, invol ving cooperation in IT, education and other areas.  
So too is the Comprehensive Closer Economic C ooperation that we are negotiating with India. 
The EC has introduced the Everything-But-Arms in itiative, granting duty-free access for all products 
from least-developed countries, basically with the exception of arms. The EC has been advocating for 
introduction of similar arrangement s by other developed countries.  
- Considering Singapore’s level of development, is the country of the opinion that it should 
introduce a similar system? Could Singapore expl ain if and in case how it intends to use its 
bilateral trade policy for supporting the further integration of the least-developed countries in 
global trade? 
To put matters in the correct perspective, Singapore currently applies tariffs only on 6 tariff lines: 
stout and porter, beer and ale and medicated and non-medicated samsu. Therefore, our regime could 
well be termed as "Everything-But-6 tariff lines", whic h applies to all countries, including the LDCs.  
To support the further integration of the LDCs into global trade, Singapore had, at the 1997 WTO High Level Meeting for LDCs, announced that we  would maintain duty-free treatment on 
107 products of export interest to LD Cs. We have also been active in providing technical assistance to 
LDCs. 
To the EC, the multilateral system has many advantag es. One of them is that  it encompasses a great 
number of countries in the world and that it ther efore becomes possible to make efforts towards 
establishing a global trading system with a level playing-field for all members, amongst other things by taking into account different levels of developm ent. The EC notes that Singapore has reached an 
average GDP pr. capita in 2001 of approximately € 22.700 which is higher than the EC average.  
- As Singapore generally seems to have progr essed vastly in economic terms and to have 
become substantially more wealthy than a num ber of other countries in the WTO who have 
also declared themselves as ‘developing countries’ , the EC should like to enquire if Singapore 
will formally declare that it is no longer a de veloping country? If so when and if not why? WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 28  
 
 A country’s development status should not be solely based on GDP or GNP levels. There is a range of 
factors that will determine whether a country is deve loped, including education, R&D, creativity and 
innovation.  In these factors, Singapore has yet to perform as well when compared to developed 
countries.  Singapore is of the view that we are not yet a fully developed country.  
Nonetheless, Singapore stands committed to being an active contributor to the international 
community, in particular to helping less developed countries in the world with our nation-building 
experience. In fact, Singapore’s past actions in the WTO and other international fora clearly 
demonstrate that our status as a developing co untry has not adversely impacted the international 
playing field. We have conducted ourselves fairly and responsibly in the WTO.  For example, to 
facilitate the successful resolution of the public  health exception under TRIPS for least developing 
countries, Singapore was one of the first WTO developing members to declare that it would not avail itself to the exception, except in situations of national emergency or other circumstances of extreme 
urgency. In APEC, we have committed to the Bogor g oals by 2010. These are reflections of our strong 
commitment to free and open trade and investment , notwithstanding our development status.  
Singapore has announced that it will establish a Compe tition Authority by January 2005, a step which 
the EC welcomes. 
- Therefore, the EC should like to enquire further as to the intended scope and nature of this 
authority, also with respect to co-operation between Singapore and third countries?  
The bill is still under consultation.  It proposes that a Competition Commission to administer the 
competition law will be set up as a statutory body under the Ministry of Trade and Industry. It will 
have powers to investigate, make decisions and impo se sanctions if the law has been infringed. A 
Competition Appeal Board will also be set up to hear appeals against decisions of the Competition 
Commission. This will be an indepe ndent body from the Competition Commission. Decisions of the 
Competition Appeal Board may be appealed to th e High Court and there is further right of appeal 
from the decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal.  
There will be a provision under the draft bill for the Competition Commission to co-operate with 
foreign competition bodies. The Commission may ent er into arrangements with foreign competition 
bodies whereby each party to the a rrangement may furnish to the oth er information and provide such 
other assistance as will facilitate the perf ormance of the parties' functions.    
QUESTIONS FROM SWITZERLAND
 
Summary Observations  
- Disinvestments (page x, para. 16): It is mentioned that disinvestments have occurred in the 
government linked companies (GLCs) ... and that the government has declared that it will disinvest all Temasek (Government's holding co mpany) companies except those considered to 
be strategic or in the public interest or with  international growth potential. Switzerland would 
be very pleased to hear from the authorities of Singapore in which timeframe Singapore 
intends to realise its objective in this regard.  
In principle, the Singapore government is prepared to fully divest its stakes in the GLCs other than 
those which are of strategic interest to our defe nce or economy.  Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister 
has articulated the government’s position on divestment in a speech to Parliament:  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 29 
 
 
 "Temasek will continue to consolidate and rationali ze its stable of companies.  It will divest those that 
are no longer relevant to its mission.  But this must be  at a right time, at a fair price, in a way which 
does not unsettle the market, and which ensures that the GLCs continue to be properly managed after 
divestment…There is no reason for the government to se ll off GLCs below their fair value, regardless 
of market conditions, by a specific deadline…"  
Economic Environment  
As a general observation, a significant government involvement in economic activities comes to the 
eye, e.g. in wage regulation, in the role of gove rnment linked companies (GLCs) or in the aim of 
maintaining the share of manufacturing in total valu e-added through an active industrial policy. What 
lessons does the government learn from the developments in the last decade? Is the government 
committed to structural reforms fostering competition? 
The key lesson over the last decade, apart from th e importance of prudent macroeconomic policies 
and an open trade regime, is the importance of ma intaining a pragmatic approach.  Singapore has not 
shied away from discarding what does not work.   
We remain committed to fostering a competitive, pr o-market and pro-enterprise environment.  We 
have embarked on autonomous liberalisation in the telecommunications, financial and energy 
markets, and will also be enacting a generic competition law by 2005. 
- As mentioned in para. 1 (page 1), Singapore h as weathered the Asian fina ncial crisis well. The 
draft report ascribes this to sound macroeconom ic policies and the openness to international 
trade and foreign investment. What role did sect oral policies and especially the regulation of 
the banking system play in the crisis-resilience of Singapore's economy? 
In general, Singapore’s sectoral policies have pl ayed a significant part in enabling the economy to 
adapt and quickly recover from adverse swings in the global business cycle, including the Asian 
financial crisis.  
In particular, a sound regulatory framework and ri gorous supervision have ensured that Singapore’s 
banking sector remained resilient in the face of ec onomic downturns.  Within this regime, Singapore’s 
local banks have grown into sound, well-capitali sed institutions and this had helped Singapore's 
financial system to emerge from the Asian crisis relatively unscathed.  D espite the crisis, we 
undertook an extensive liberalisation program aimed at deepening and broadening capital markets, 
consolidating and upgrading the local banks, and e nhancing Singapore's position as an international 
financial centre.  At the same time, we put in place a new supervisory fram ework to oversee financial 
institutions, shifting from one-size-fits-all regulatio n to more risk-based supervision and work with 
banks to set guidelines for best practices to al low greater room for enterprise and innovation. 
- Fiscal policy (pages 8-9, paras. 12-13):  Singapore's prudent fiscal policy aiming at attaining 
moderate budget surpluses over the business cycle is commendable. At 99.2% of GDP (2002), Singapore exhibits a rather high ratio of public debt to GDP. If the fiscal course described in the TPR is effective, the debt level should be expected to decline over time. By the end of the 
present cycle, will the debt level be reduced to or  below its level at the beginning of the cycle? 
Is it the 2001 off-budget package that explains the leap in the debt-to-GDP ratio between 2000 
(82.4%) and 2001 (96.7%)?  
Outstanding Singapore Government Securities (SGS ) make up the bulk of Singapore public debt. WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 30  
 
 The SGS are not issued to finance government expend iture or off-budget measures, but primarily as a 
means to develop Singapore's capital markets. SGS we re initially issued to meet banks' needs for a 
risk-free asset in their liquid asset  portfolios and to enhance the efficiency and liquidity of the SGS 
market as part of a strategy to develop Singapore as an international debt hub.    
The SGS issued also include the SGS special issu es to the Central Provident Fund (CPF), which are 
non-tradable and held by the Central Provident Fu nd Board (CPFB) as assets. The mandatory and 
defined contribution pension fund scheme, CPF, is  administered by the CPF Board.  The CPF Board 
places the net proceeds as Advance Deposits with th e Monetary Authority of Singapore for subsequent 
subscription to Special Issues of SGS.  These Sp ecial Issues of SGS have original maturities of 
20 years and are non-marketable. They are issued sp ecifically to the CPF Board to meet its 
investment requirements under the CPF Act and pay an interest equivalent to the interest the CPF 
Board pays to CPF members.  
Hence, the amount of SGS that has been issued and the public debt to GDP ratio are not an indication 
of a weak fiscal position or that Singapore  has ne eded to borrow to spend. In fact, the Singapore 
Government has managed to accumulate budget surpluses since 1986 except in 2001 and 2003 when 
the Government ran relatively small deficits in  response to the sharp economic downturns. These 
deficits are not structural. 
Top credit rating agencies, Moody's  and S&Ps have assigned Singapore their highest rating of Aaa 
and AAA respectively and also indicate their explicit recognition that the debt issuance in Singapore is not for fiscal financing, but for th e development of the capital markets. 
It would be inaccurate to link Singapore's fiscal hea lth with our public debt to GDP ratio, as there is 
no correlation between the two. 
- Purchase Residential Property (page 26, para. 31) It is said, that "foreign persons are 
restricted ... from freely purchasing restricted residential properties, unless permitted by the 
Controller ... and that the main criteria for a pproval are whether the applicants are permanent 
residents of Singapore and their economic c ontribution to Singapore". Switzerland would 
appreciate if the authorities of Singapore could prov ide further clarifications with regard to the 
criterion "economic contribution to Singapore". We would also be very pleased to learn 
whether the said criterion is of a cumulative nature  to the requirement that the applicants have 
to be permanent residents of Singapore.    
Yes, it is of a cumulative nature.  In assessing an applicant's "economic c ontribution to Singapore", 
the applicant's professional, technical or academic qualifications, expertise co mbined with working 
experience in an area relevant to Singapore and the applicant's investments in Singapore in an 
industry or service sector needed by Sing apore are all taken into consideration. 
Technical Barriers to Trade
 
According to para. 40 (page 40) of document WT/TPR/S/130, conformity certificates required under 
technical regulations  in Singapore are issued by designated third party conformity assessment 
bodies. Can also foreign certification bodies be designated in Singapore? What are the requirements 
for such bodies to be designated? Is the designa tion procedure shortened if a foreign conformity 
assessment body is accredited by any accreditation body participating in interna tional organizations in 
the field of accreditation such as the In ternational Accreditation Forum (IAF)? 
Under the Singapore Consumer Protection (Safety Requirements) Regulations 2002,  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 31 
 
 
 - certification (Certificate of Conformity) issu ed by Designated third party Conformity 
Assessment Bodies(Certification Bodies) located in Singapore and 
- certification issued by CABs(Certification Bodies) designated by Mutual Recognition 
Agreement/Arrangement (MRA) partners- bilatera l Electrical and Electronics (EE) MRAs, 
namely: ASMRA (EE MRA with Australia), ANZSCEP (EE MRA with New Zealand) and JSEPA (EE MRA with Japan) and multilat eral MRAs, namely: ASEAN EE MRA and APEC 
EE MRA 
are accepted. 
SPRING Singapore as the Designating Authority under the SPRING (Conformity Assessment) 
Regulations 2002 only has the legal mandate to p erform designation of CABs (Certification Bodies) 
located in Singapore. 
CABs (Certification Bodies) located outside of Singapore can only be designated by Designating 
Authorities of MRA partners in accordance with th e applicable criteria of the MRAs which requires 
amongst others, accreditation to ISO/IEC Guide 65 by accreditation bodies participating in 
international organisations in the field of accredita tion or IEC EE CB Full Certification Scheme (only 
applicable for electrical product safety).  
As accreditation is a pre-requisite for designatio n, once a foreign conformity assessment body is 
accredited by an internationally-recognised accredita tion body, it will certainly qualify to apply for 
such designation in Singapore. 
Industrial Policy
 
- (pages 49-63, paras. 76-116) Government involv ement in productive activities is considerable. 
Ownership of Temasek holding company in many firms in the network industries may be a problem, but may be justified on economic grounds  to some extent by the persistence of 
monopolistic bottlenecks. Participation in ba nks by Temasek and the activities by the 
Singapore Economic Development Board (EDB) app ear to be more critical at the current 
stage of development of the Singapore economy . We would be interested to know whether 
government interferes with the lending policies of  the banks controlled at least indirectly by 
Temasek, in order to pursue strategic goals, but al so in order to avoid risk for the tax payer? 
We would like to clarify that the Government has ownership in only one bank: DBS.  The Government 
does not interfere with the lending policies of any bank.  The Government has always separated management and ownership responsibilities.  Th e respective boards and management teams are 
responsible for the GLCs, their business and invest ment decisions including their day-to-day 
management.  DBS is no exception. 
Government Procurement
 
- par. 57.  The tenders are in Singapore publishe d electronically on the Government Electronic 
Business System website. Are the tenders no mo re published in paper form? If so, how can 
Singapore ensure non-discrimination among the suppliers? 
- par. 58.  All suppliers interested in par ticipating in Singapore's government procurement 
programmes are required to register as government contractors. Does that mean that a supplier 
who is not registered will not be allowed to participate? WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 32  
 
 - par. 60.  Can you explain why the Government Procurement Adjudication Tribunal has not 
received any complaints to date? 
Singapore believes that posting Notices of Intended Proc urement on the Internet (via GeBIZ) is more 
transparent and facilitates participa tion from foreign suppliers. The Notices of Intended Procurement 
can be viewed openly by all suppliers and foreign s uppliers can access the information from their own 
countries. The Notices of Intended Procurement are also posted on GeBIZ till the closing date. This 
greatly increases the a ccessibility of suppliers to Governme nt Procurement opportunities. 
The rationale for registration is such that the business entities save on cost  since they need only 
submit financial and track record information once  to a single verifying body, instead of having to do 
so to every separate government agency for every government tender they participated in. 
Government agencies also benefit from the registra tion since the verification work has already been 
done upfront and suppliers categorized. Registra tion, if required for a particular Intended 
Procurement, would be explicitly stated up front an d interested suppliers or contractors can apply for 
registration with the EPPU or BCA. Suppliers and cont ractors that are not yet registered with the   
EPPU/BCA registration can still participate in tenders while waiting for the outcome of the 
registration.  
In accordance to our obligations, Singapore ha s put in place the Government Procurement 
Adjudication Tribunal since 1998. The procedures for lodging a complaint with the Tribunal is clearly 
spelt out in our legislation. We can only guess po ssible reasons why there has been no complaints so 
far : 
(i) our government procuring entities has been in compliance with the WTO-GPA 
obligations; 
(ii) suppliers are able to settle any disputes with the government agency directly and able 
to obtain satisfactory replies. 
Incentives - Taxation
 
- (pages 55-58, paras, 92-100) With respect to taxes we are impressed by the long list of 
schemes by which tax credits are provided. Would a lowering of the general tax rate not be an 
alternative, given the fact that a large number  of companies are probably eligible for one or 
the other scheme. Such a move might already be justified by administrative costs, given the relatively low ordinary tax rate. 
The objective of lowering Singapore’s corporate income  tax rates is to main tain our international 
competitiveness. In general, count ries globally have been lowering th eir corporate tax rates in recent 
years. For example, between 1997 and 2002, the aver age corporate tax rate for OECD countries was 
reduced by about 5%. Countries that have lowered their corporate tax ra tes include Australia, 
Germany, India and Korea.  
Meanwhile, it is inaccurate to state that a larg e number of companies would be "eligible for one or 
the other scheme." Incentives are only awarded to those companies carrying out activities that make 
substantial contribution to the Singapore economy. 
Corporate Governance
 
How is the supervision of auditors organised in the light of the Sarbanes Oxley Act in the United 
States?  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 33 
 
 
 In Singapore, we have a variety of checks and requirements aimed at ensuring accountability and 
transparency.  The legal requirements are generally found in the Companies Act, the Accountants Act 
and its related subsidiary legislation.   
Recent amendments to the Accountants Act have also  strengthened the regulatory framework for the 
audit profession in Singapore. For instance, the Accountants Act allows the regulators to take 
disciplinary action against errant public accountants,  accounting firms and accounting corporations. 
The Accountants Act also formalises the Practice Monitoring Programme (PMP), wherein regulatory 
officers audits the auditors themselves  for compliance with auditing standards. Through this PMP, the 
regulatory body (i.e. the Public Accountants Oversi ght Committee or "PAOC" which is statutorily 
appointed under the Accountant's Act) will monito r the professional standards and practice of public 
accountants. The PAOC has the power to take action against public accountants who fail PMP 
reviews, including the recommendation of remedial steps to improve pr ofessional practice, restriction 
of practice, suspension and de-registration.  
Aside from the auditing standards, public accountants must abide by  a Code of Professional Conduct 
and Ethics which is contained in the legislation relat ing to public accountants, a breach of which may 
lead to disciplinary action. 
Intellectual Property Rights  
- Paragraph 134 (page 66) reports on Singapore' s regime regarding protection of undisclosed 
information among private parties only. In addition to that, Members might want to know how Singapore's legislation ensures that undisclosed test  or other data submitted by an applicant to 
the responsible State agency in the procedure fo r market authorisation of pharmaceuticals or 
agricultural chemical products is protected ag ainst disclosure and against unfair commercial 
use (Article 39.3 TRIPS). 
Singapore protects undisclosed test or other data s ubmitted by an applicant to an authority for market 
approval against disclosure and against unfair commercial use as follows: 
(a) in relation to pharmaceuticals, through the Medicines Act (Cap. 176) Singapore 
statutes; 
(b) in relation to agriculture chemical products under the Control of Plants Act 
(Cap. 57A) Singapore Statutes. 
QUESTIONS FROM NEW ZEALAND
 
1. New Zealand notes that at the time of the last  Review in 2000, Singapore acknowledged that 
"there is a need to further deregulate our services  sector. In this regard, we have deregulated the 
telecommunications, financial and energy sectors. Other services will be reviewed in due course" 
(p.196, Trade Policy Review Report, 2000). Howeve r the 2004 Secretariat Report notes (p.77) "Since 
the previous Review of Singapore in 2000, there ha ve been no changes to its commitments or its MFN 
exemptions." New Zealand welcomes Singapore's libera lisation of its services sector, in particular the 
telecommunications sector, in recent years. We woul d be interested in Singapore's elaboration on what 
further liberalisation it envisages. More specifi cally, does Singapore have any plans to further 
liberalise the postal and education sectors? 
Singapore has participated activel y and constructively in the UR services negotiations and the 
extended negotiations, including on  financial and teleco mmunications services. Singapore had made 
good commitments in a variety of services sectors/activities in all these negotiations. WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 34  
 
 In the context of the DDA services negotiations , Singapore has made an initial services offer on a 
number of services sectors/activities.  Our offer was also intended to  facilitate progress in the services 
negotiations. The initial offer responds to some of th e requests that were made of us in the earlier 
stages of the negotiations. We have also  submitted requests to other Members. 
As always, Singapore has participated and will conti nue to participate actively and constructively in 
the DDA services negotiations. There has to be a bal ance of concessions or offers from all Members 
to facilitate a successful outcome in services.  The balance of con cessions or offers that all Members 
make in the course of these negotiati ons is expected to be committed at the end of the negotiations. 
With regard to MFN exemptions,   we recognize that  the CTS is about  to embark on the review of the 
MFN exemptions at the June 04 services cluster. At this juncture, we are s till consulting our relevant 
agencies on this matter. As in the case of spec ific commitments, Singapore will also  participate 
actively and constructively on the MFN exemptions i ssue, as we do in oth er areas of the services 
negotiations.  
The InfoComm Development Authority (IDA) is cu rrently studying the appropriate policy framework 
for the postal services sector aft er 31 March 2007. Under the Postal Services Act, the conveyance of 
letters and postcards must be licensed by IDA. In  1992, IDA granted Singapore Post Pte Ltd a public 
postal licence with exclusive rights for the domestic  and international conveyance of ordinary letters 
and postcards, till 31 March 2007 
In the higher education sector, there is a wide ra nge of foreign education institutions present in 
Singapore.  There are more than 10 leading foreign universities in Singapore e.g., MIT, INSEAD and 
Technical University of Munich.  There are also ma ny private schools that offer a broad range of 
programmes. 
2. With respect to professional services, what steps is the government of Singapore taking to 
ensure that requirements for registration (incl uding recognition of professional qualifications) as 
prescribed by Singapore's professional bodies do not act as a barrier to trade in services? 
The registration requirements for foreign prof essionals interested to practise in Singapore are 
transparent and objective.  Details for registrati on can be found on the prof essional bodies' websites.  
Singapore is periodically reviewing its policies on registration and recognition of professional 
qualification to reflect Singapore’s liberal services re gime and attract international talent.  Singapore 
tries to accord recognition based on multilaterally agreed criteria.  For example, in the area of 
engineering qualifications, Singapore is making arr angements to join the Washington Accord and 
APEC Engineer Register. 
3. New Zealand commends the Government of Singapore on its draft Competition Bill which 
was released for consultation purposes earlier th is year. The coverage of Government-Linked 
Corporations in the proposed new law should go some  way to allay concerns that the GLCs enjoy a 
privileged competitive position in the Singapore mark et. When is it proposed that this competition 
legislation be passed and brought into force? 
We expect the law to come into effect early 2005. 
4. Update on Singapore’s FTA Initiatives (Verbal question) 
To date, Singapore has concluded bilateral FTAs with 6 partners – New Zealand, Japan, European 
Free Trade Association, Australia, the United St ates and Jordan.  The following FTAs are still under  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 35 
 
 
 negotiation – Canada, Republic of Korea, India,  New Zealand and Chile (trilateral FTA), Panama, 
and Mexico.  Singapore, as part of ASEAN, is cu rrently negotiating FTAs with China, India and 
Japan. 
QUESTIONS FROM THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, 
KINMEN AND MATSU  
I. WT/TPR/G/30 
A. Economic Performance 
1. Paragraph 2 states that "The biomedical  manufacturing segment, which has expanded to 
account for almost a fifth of Singapore’s manufacturi ng output, led all other segments with a firm 
8.1% growth." 
a) We should be grateful if Singapore coul d please provide us w ith a breakdown of its 
biomedical manufacturing industry by the vari ous business sectors, e.g. pharmaceuticals, 
vaccines, pathology, gene technology or any other biomedical businesses. 
Pharmaceuticals contributed $9.5 billion or 84% of  the total biomedical sciences manufacturing 
output in 2003.  Medical technology contributed 16%.  For more detailed information, please refer to 
the following weblink: http://www.sedb.com/edbcorp/sg/en_uk/index/in_t he_news/press_releases/2004/singapore_s_biomedi
cal.html 
b) In addition, WT/TPR/S/130 page  52, paragraph 87, line 5, states that the GLCs plan is to 
invest in new high-technology sectors such as biotechnology.  In light of the government’s 
policy to develop the biomedical industry and the significant contribution to the overall economy made by multinational corporations  (MNCs) and government-linked companies 
(GLCs), could Singapore please describe what incentives are offered by the government to 
foreign investors in this sector and whether there are any GLCs actively engaged in this 
segment. 
The incentives offered by the Singapore government are described in Chapter III (ii) Incentives of the 
Secretariat Report. The incentives awarded depend on the nature, scope and  the economic benefits 
that can be derived from the investment.   
B. Trade and Economic Policy 
1. Paragraph 15 mentions that "The Workfor ce Development Agency (WDA) aims to enhance 
the employability of the local workforce" and "The WDA will also help industries develop their capabilities to plan and meet their manpower n eeds, as well as upgrade human capital management 
practices."  
No, Singapore's Employment Act, which prescribes the minimum terms and conditions of employment 
in Singapore to safeguard the basic rights of wo rkers, accords fair treatment for both local and 
foreign workers covered by the Act. 
We would appreciate knowing whether the Singapore government has a policy of protecting the local 
workforce?  If the answer is "yes", please describ e the measures that are employed, or will be 
employed, by the WDA, with the exception of education and vocational training.  Does the WDA 
provide grants for personnel training purposes? WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 36  
 
 Yes, WDA provides grants for personnel training pur poses.  Beyond providing training grants, the 
WDA also works with various industries through pl atforms such as partnerships with industry 
associations and major companies in the industri es to understand their m anpower needs and address 
the gaps. 
II. WT/TPR/S/130 
A. Trade Policy Regime: Framework and Objectives 1. We note from Paragraph 27 that "…since 2000,  Singapore has signed bilateral free-trade 
agreements …".  
Please describe the changes, if any, that have taken place in patterns of trade as a result of the signing 
of these FTAs. 
Preliminary indications show encouraging results .  Bilateral trade with FTA partners has shown 
positive growth.  FTAs have also catalysed investment  flows, through the protections embodied in the 
agreement, as well as the strong signaling effect of the FTA to the business community, particularly 
SMEs.   
2. It states in Paragraph 28 that "Rules of orig in within Singapore’s bilateral agreements are 
detailed and complicated…the burden of complying with  the rules of origin is primarily on Singapore-
based exporters…" (p. 35 paras. 22-23 also refer). 
Please could Singapore explain: 
a) Who administers the issuance of certificates of origin? 
The Singapore Customs Department issues the certifica te of origin, where required under the various 
FTAs. 
b) What is the procedure for issuing such a cer tificate and would the authority carry out physical 
inspection, on a random basis, to verify an applicant’s statement of origin? 
The procedures differ for different FTAs, de pending on the respective requirements. 
For example, under our FTA with Japan, which re quires an authorised certificate of origin, the 
product seeking preferential tariff treatment must be manuf actured by a factory that is registered with 
the Singapore Customs (SC).  Upon registration, th e manufacturer will be able to submit to the SC the 
Manufacturing Cost Statement for each product mode l that the exporter intends to export to Japan.  
The SC will then verify the Manufacturing Cost  Statement and inform the exporter whether the 
product satisfies the origin criteria for the preferen tial CO.  With the SC's approval letter for the 
Manufacturing Cost Statement, the exporter may appl y for the preferential CO to Japan electronically 
via TradeNet. 
(A detailed elaboration of the procedures involved can be found on the Sing apore TradeNet website at 
http://www.tradenet.gov.sg/tr dnet/index.jsp?catName=9&artName=10&url=/html/5_Free_ 
Trade_Agreements.html) 
c) Is there any penalty for mis-statement of the origin of the goods? 
For wrongful declaration of origin of exports, th e declarant will be guilty of an offence under the 
Regulations of Imports and Exports Act.  For an importer who wrongf ully declares the origin to claim  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 37 
 
 
 preferential treatment, the declarant will be guilty  of an offence under the Customs Act and the goods 
will not be accorded preferential tar iff treatment. Both offences are of strict liability, i.e., it shall be no 
defence to allege that the wrongful declaration was made inadvertently or without criminal or fraudulent intent. 
3. Paragraph 30 mentions that "For example, th e aggregate foreign shareholding limit in PSA 
Corporation, …is 49%..." 
As we understand it, PSA Corporation is currently wholly-owned by Temasek Holdings Company.  
Could Singapore please clarify whether this 49% limit is mandated by a regulatory measure or 
whether this level is indicative of the future divestment limit set by Temasek? 
The 49% limit is inscribed in PSA’s Memorandum and Ar ticles of Association.  It is not mandated by 
any regulatory scheme and does not represent any future divestment limit by Temasek.   
B. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure 1. Paragraph 3 states that "Consequently, it would appear the Government is slowly taking steps 
to reduce its shareholdings in non-strategic compan ies and sectors…" and paragr aph 87 mentions that 
"In response to concerns about the role of these co mpanies, the Government has stated that it will 
divest those that do not have international grow th potential or serve no strategic/public purpose". 
It would be appreciated if Singapore could please indicate whether any published policy exists as to 
the definition of "non-strategic companies and sector s", or, if not, please advise what criteria would be 
applied by the government to assess whether a particul ar sector or company has strategic interests for 
Singapore. 
Singapore’s policy position on divestment is reflected  in the Temasek Charter.  Reasons that the 
Government needs to own and control companies incl ude: (a) critical resources, and (b) public policy 
objectives.  For more information, please refer  to Temasek’s website (www.temasek.com.sg).   
2. In Paragraph 87 we note that "…the GLCs  account for around 13% of Singapore’s GDP" and 
that "Statutory boards should only form companies that serve a strategic/public role…or do not breach 
the ‘yellow pages’ rule." 
a) Are there any laws or regulations in Singa pore that provide a definition of a government-
linked corporations (GLCs )?  If not, we would be interested in knowing what definition has 
been used in calculating these statistics and how many GLCs currently exist,  according to the 
definition used by the Singapore government? Fu rthermore, we would like to know whether 
the calculation also includes subsidia ries of GLCs outside Singapore? 
No, GLCs are not defined in Singapore’s laws and re gulations.  In this connection, please refer to 
Chapter 3, page 52, footnote 60 for a definition of GLC.  The computation does not include 
subsidiaries of GLCs outside Singapore. 
b) With reference to the statement in Paragr aph 87 that "While Tema sek reports only on its 
major companies, it is reported that the influen ce of the GLCs is much greater due to their 
shareholdings or ownership of other compani es", we would be interested in knowing how 
many GLCs exist both inside and outside Singapore. 
A list of GLCs will be made publicly available on the Ministry of Industry and Trade’s website 
(www.mti.gov.sg) by end of the year.   WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 38  
 
 c) Could Singapore please explain how the so-called "yellow pages" rule is interpreted?  Does it 
mean, for example, that, once a GLC formed by the statutory board is engaged in a certain 
business, no private business will be allowed in the same sector?  And, likewise, if there is a 
private business in the same sector, will the stat utory board privatize its GLC?  Bearing in 
mind Singapore’s reputation of having a globally  important venture capital industry, would 
the existence of the EDBI ( Para. 102 re fers) breach the "yellow-pages" rule? 
The "yellow pages" rule states that statutory boards should generally not provide any goods and 
services that can be found in the "yellow pages".   When statutory boards set up companies, they 
should do so with an ultimate view to divestment. 
EDBI serves a developmental objective and invests only in  projects that entail high risk, have long 
gestation, require large investments and are strategi c, which not many private sector companies are 
willing or able to do so.  Thus, the setting up of  EDBI does not breach the "yellow pages" rule. 
3. Paragraph 71 states that "Export insurance and guarantees are provided by ECICS Credit 
Insurance Ltd and ECICS Credit and Guarantee Co.( S) Ltd.  Since February 2002, ECICS Credit 
Insurance is licensed under the Insurance Act (Chapt er 142) to write credit insurance, political risk 
insurance, bonds and guarantee business". 
Please could Singapore explain the difference, if an y, between the ECICS and other commercial banks 
in terms of the premium rates for providing export credit insurance and guarantees.  What factors does 
the ECICS take into consideration when setting the premium rate for political risk insurance? 
Both ECICS Credit Insurance Ltd and ECICS Credit and Guarantee Co.(S) Ltd are commercially run.  
The setting of premium rates for export credit insu rance, guarantees and political risk insurance are 
based on commercial decisions undertaken by ECICS. 
4. Paragraph 87 states that the GLCs account for around 22% of Singapore’s GDP, indicating 
that the government still has a significant amount of influence in the economy. 
Bearing in mind that GLCs can obtain resources much mo re easily than private sector enterprises, how 
does the government ensure that an environment of fair competition exists between GLCs and private 
enterprises? 
We would like to clarify that according to parag raph 87, GLCs account for 13% of Singapore’s GDP.  
The figure of 22% quoted includes the st atutory boards and the government.   
It is incorrect that GLCs can obtain resources  more easily.  The Singapore government does not 
provide any guarantee or financial lifelines to the GLCs. GLCs operate on sound commercial 
principles.  They must either fund their activities from operating revenues or approach their own parent companies or tap the capital markets to s ource their funding requirements. The banks and the 
markets in turn make their own a ssessment of the credit worthiness of  the companies they lend to, and 
the bigger and stronger companies will generally en joy better credit ratings and better spreads. The 
lenders and analysts rate the companies, and their cred it ratings vary from company to company and 
from time to time.  For example, Moody's put a negat ive outlook on SingTel in June 2002, which had 
implications on SingTel's borrowing costs. 
GLCs are subject to the same regulatory regime and market discipline as all other private sector 
companies.   The government does not condone unfair competition whether by GL Cs or private sector  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 39 
 
 
 companies. To strengthen the regulatory environm ent further, the Singapore government will be 
enacting a competition law.   All companies, including  GLCs, will be subject to this competition law. 
5. We have noted in Paragraph 88, that "T he Government does not provide any subsidies 
specifically to the GLCs although it does maintain a "special share" in some  companies,..." According 
to Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement, a subsidy may be deemed to exist if government practice 
involves a direct transfer of funds, including equity infusion. 
In view of the fact that most of the GLCs are not  listed companies and some of them are involved in 
manufacturing activities, please explain how the Sing apore government ensures that its acquisition of 
shares in GLCs does not confer a "benefit"?  
Temasek's mandate, as a professionally-run in vestment holding company to hold Singapore 
government investments, is to maximise shareholder va lue.   Its investment practice is not unlike that 
of private investors in Singapore.  It acquires s hares or injects funds into companies based on 
commercial principles and has no reason to provide financial contributions on terms more favourable 
than what private investors are willing to provide in the market.  GLCs are expected to operate 
efficiently and deliver commercial returns.  The government does not provide concessionary 
financing, guarantee, financial lifelines, or any preferential treatment to GLCs. 
6. According to paragraph 90, Temasek has been  divesting its shareholdings in GLCs since 
1999, but still holds the majority in some of the pa rtially-privatized corporations. We would therefore 
be interested in knowing:  
a) What is Temasek’s main aim in privatizing the GLCs? 
b) Is there any timetable for further privatization?  
c) How has Temasek’s role changed in the move from wholly-owned to privatized 
 corporations?  
We assume that "privatization" refers to divestment. In principle, the Singapore government is prepared to fully divest its stakes in the GLCs other than 
those which are of strategic interest to our defe nce or economy.  Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister 
has articulated the government’s position on divestment in a speech to Parliament: 
"Temasek will continue to consolidate and rationali ze its stable of companies.  It will divest those that 
are no longer relevant to its mission.  But this must be  at a right time, at a fair price, in a way which 
does not unsettle the market, and which ensures that the GLCs continue to be properly managed after 
divestment…There is no reason for the government to se ll off GLCs below their fair value, regardless 
of market conditions, by a specific deadline…" 
7. Paragraph 99 states that "Singapore continues to promote investment in certain sectors or 
activities through tax incentives". We would therefore be interested in knowing: 
a) What particular sectors or activities Singapore is targeting at the present time. 
b) Whether, prior to putting this policy into practice, Singapore has carried out any  assessment of the effectiveness of th ese incentives in attracting these sectors? 
c) What criteria, if any, are used in the selection of the sectors? 
Singapore's tax incentives are transparent and bro ad-based so as to promote knowledge-based 
activities.  Although our incentives may be class ified sectorally, namely, Manufacturing, Services, WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 40  
 
 Banking and Tourism, etc., this is done as th e needs for these broad secto rs may differ. The main 
considerations guiding the award of incentives ha ve always been higher value-added and innovation 
activities.  For further elaboration, please refer to the following sections of the Secretariat Report: 
"Legislation and Incentives" in Chapter II, "Incentiv es" in Chapter III, "Banking and Insurance" and 
"Tourism Services" in Chapter IV.  Periodically, we  will review if the incentive schemes put in place 
have met the desired objectives.    
8. It is noted in Paragraph 134, that "Trade secrets and confidential information are protected 
under Common Law." Could Singapore please elaborate on how biomedical data is protected, in 
particular with respect to clinical trial data. 
Singapore protects undisclosed test or other data s ubmitted by an applicant to an authority for market 
approval against disclosure and against unfair commercial use as follows: 
a. in relation to pharmaceuticals, through the Medicines Act (Cap. 176) Singapore 
 statutes; 
b. in relation to agriculture chemical products under the Control of Plants Act 
(Cap. 57A) Singapore Statutes. 
C. Trade Policies by Sector Agriculture 
1. Paragraph 6 indicates that the Thai exporter’s price is used as the basis for comparison for the 
price of stockpile grades of rice in Singapore.   
We would appreciate knowing the reason why Singapore has chosen the Thai e xporter’s price as the 
basis for comparison. 
Singapore has chosen the Thai exporter's price as the basis for comparison as Thailand remains the 
major source of rice for our domestic populace.  In addition, Thailand is a key exporter of rice to the 
world market.  Its prices are often used as reference by traders to ascertain a fair market price for 
similar grades of rice. 
Power and Water 
2. Paragraphs 23 to 25 describ e how Singapore began importing natural gas from Malaysia in 
1992 and further diversified its s upply sources to Indonesia in 2001.  At about the same time, 
Singapore introduced the Gas Act which sets the lega l basis for the separation of the "contestable" 
sectors of import and retail from the monopolistic sector of gas transportation.   
Please could Singapore clarify whether the diversific ation of its cross-border pipeline supply sources 
was a contributory factor in its at decision to atte mpt to introduce competition to the gas industry?   
No, diversification of Singapore's cross-border pipelin e supply sources was not a contributory factor.  
The gas industry was being restructured to support th e reform of the electricity industry by providing 
a competitive source of natural gas for generati on of electricity. The government separated the 
monopolistic part from the competitive parts of the indus try at the ownership level  so as to ensure fair 
competition and a level playing field.  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 41 
 
 
 Services 
3. Paragraph 2 mentions that "… A numbe r of services…continue to be dominated by 
companies owned by the Government’s holding company."  Please could Singapore clarify whether 
the retail prices were set by the indu stries according to market rules?  
Paragraph 2 of the Secretariat report merely states that  the price of water is set by the Government.  
This is necessary because Singapore imports water for its own use.  Other than water, retail prices for 
other services are determined by the market. GL Cs are managed on a commercial basis and the 
government does not interfere or influence their opera tional decisions. They are subjected to the same 
regulatory regime and disciplines of the market as all other private sector companies. 
4. According to paragraph 29, "Under its Schedule of Commitments, market access for natural 
persons is unbound,…".  We understand that many developing countries advocate the liberalization of 
the market for services under Mode 4 supply. We would be interested in Singapore’s view and its 
position in this respect.  
The full sentence of the Secretariat Report reads : "Under its Schedule of Specific Commitments, 
market access for natural persons is unbound, excep t for the temporary movement of intra-corporate 
transferees of personnel (for up to three years, exte ndable for a further two years), which have been 
employed by the company outside Singapore for not less than one year immediately preceding their 
application for entry into Singapore". 
We recognize that a significant number of devel oping countries advocate the liberalization of market 
access for services under Mode 4. We are of the view that all the modes of supply, including Mode 4, 
are important for the economic development of all WTO Members, both developed and developing. In 
this regard, we look forward towards a good outcome  on all modes of supply, including on Mode 4, in 
the DDA negotiations.   
Singapore has submitted an initial offer to facilitate progress in th e services negotiations. The initial 
offer responds to some of the requests that were made  of us in the earlier stages of the negotiations. 
We have also submitted requests to other Members. 
As always, Singapore will continue to participat e actively and constructively in the DDA services 
negotiations. There has to be a bal ance of concessions from all Members to facilitate a successful 
outcome in services. 
5. Paragraph 30 indicates that Singapore’s commitments under GATS include many MFN 
exemptions. Bearing in mind that such exemptions, in principle, should not exceed a period of 
10 years, as stipulated in the Annex on Article II Exem ptions of the GATS, we would be interested in 
learning whether Singapore will be maintaining its  MFN exemptions beyond 2005, particularly in 
areas of interest to us, such as media and banki ng services. If ‘yes", what would be Singapore’s 
rationale for such a decision? 
Singapore notes that the Council for Trade in Servi ces will be embarking on the review of the MFN 
exemptions at the June 2004 services cluster.  Si ngapore is still in the process of consulting our 
relevant authorities, with a view to participating actively and constructively in the MFN exemptions 
issue, as we do in other areas of services negotiations. 
6. Paragraphs 56 and 59 me ntion that Singapore introduced full competition in the 
telecommunications market on 1 April 2000, and currently only SingTel and Starhub provide fixed-WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 42  
 
 line services". It is also stated that "Price contro ls continue to apply for key services provided by the 
dominant operators regarded as non-competitive and vital for promoting the competitiveness of the 
industry".  
We would therefore be interested in learning:  
a) Whether applicants can apply to Info-co mmunications Development Authority (IDA) for a 
license at any time? 
Yes. 
b) What are the reasons for the fact that, follo wing the introduction of competition, fixed-line 
services are provided by two carriers only? 
There are two main carriers in the fixed-line residential telephone market but there are many other 
smaller-scale FBOs providing fixed-lin e services to the corporate market.   
c) Whether, apart from price controls, there is any other measure, that applies to the dominant 
operators (that are regarded as non-competitive) in order to promote the competitiveness of 
the industry, e.g. fixed network, domestic  leased line and int’l leased line services? 
Under the Telecom Competition Code, licensees cl assified as dominant must comply with more 
stringent requirements on interconnection, unbundled  network elements, co-location, sharing of 
essential support structures, price regulation and competition. 
7. According to paragraph 84,  to be able to practice accountancy services in Singapore, 
accountants must have passed the final examination in accountancy, have structured or unstructured 
experience in a public accountant’s office, complete a pre-registration course, demonstrate proficiency 
in local laws and become members of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Singapore. The 
amounts of structured and unstructured practical  experience required are also mentioned.  
It would be appreciated if Singapore could explain to us exactly what is meant by structured and 
unstructured practical experience, and provide ex amples. Furthermore, we would like to know 
whether the practical experience is  recognized by the PAB only if it is gained in Singapore and how 
the applicant demonstrates to the PAB his/her proficiency in local laws. 
Under Singapore's Accountants Act , "Structured  Practical Experience" means experience gained 
under an approved   principal in  the Accounting Service, the Aud iting Service, the Inland Revenue 
Service, a public accountant’s office or in any  other organisation recognised by the  Public 
Accountants Oversight Committee (Note that under the new Accountant's Act which came into effect 
on 1st April 2004, the Public Accountants' Board ceased to exist and the Public Accountants Oversight Committee now administer accounting prof ession) .  Unstructured practical experience is 
anything that does not fall within the definition of Structured Practical Experience. 
No, Singapore's Accountants Act does not stipulate that only local experience would be recognised. 
An applicant for registration as a public accountant  who has not passed any of the final examinations 
in accountancy  must satisfy the Oversight Committ ee of his proficiency in local laws by passing an 
examination in the following subjects: 
(a) Singapore Company Law; and  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 43 
 
 
 (b) Singapore Taxation and Tax Management. 
However, this requirement does not apply to an applic ant who has at least 2 years of relevant local 
experience. 
8. Paragraph 89 states that "The regulation of lawyers, especially foreign lawyers in Singapore, 
is based on the policy objective of maintaining a certa in level of quality of legal services and to ensure 
that there is no oversupply of lawyers in the domestic  legal market".  It would appear that the above-
mentioned policy might result in some uncertainty  in the market. We wonder whether Singapore’s 
policy could be said to amount to a so-calle d "economic needs test" in this respect? 
The regulation of lawyers in Singapore applies equally  to Singapore lawyers as  to foreign lawyers in 
Singapore.  The restrictions which Singapore has im posed vis-à-vis our own population with respect 
to the number of lawyers is because of our own domestic social and economic reasons.  With respect 
to Singapore's domestic legal market, due to its small size and its inability to cope with a huge influx 
of foreign lawyers, restrictions are placed on fo reign lawyers only in respect of the practice of 
Singapore law or host-country law.  These restri ctions are based on the policy objective of 
maintaining a certain level of quality of legal services and to ensure that there is no oversupply of lawyers in the small domestic legal market.  The aforementioned policy is clear and transparent, and 
we cannot see how this might result in uncertainty in  the market.  There are no restrictions imposed 
on foreign lawyers for the practice of home-country law, third-country law and international law.  
The issue of an 'economic needs test' does not apply.  As in the past, Singapore continues to welcome 
foreign law firms and foreign lawyers to come to  Singapore to practise home-country law, third-
country law and international law.  Many have done so.  The offshore legal services market in Singapore is one of the most liberal in the world 
Financial Services 
9. As indicated in paragraph 35 of the report, fore ign banks that have not been granted qualifying 
full bank (QFB) privileges cannot establish off-premi ses ATMs, ATM networks or new sub-branches. 
Would Singapore consider lifting these restrictions  so that well-established foreign branches are 
offered national treatment in this respect? 
QFB licences were introduced as part of MAS’ liberalization progr amme in 1999.  Foreign banks that 
were awarded QFB licences could establish a li mited number of off-premises ATMs and sub-
branches, and set up ATM networks amongst themselv es.  To date, all 6 QFB licences have been 
awarded.  We will continue to monitor progres s in the banking industry before deciding on further 
liberalisation measures. 
10. Box IV.1 on Page 79 of the report shows that  wholesale banks may not accept fixed deposit 
accounts in Singapore dollars of less than S$ 250,00 0 per deposit from non-bank customers; they may 
not  operate savings accounts denominated in Singa pore dollars or foreign currency except with the 
prior approval of MAS; and they shall maintain only one place of business in Singapore. Besides, 
offshore banks may accept fixed deposits of S$  250,000 or more from non-residents and extend 
Singapore dollar loans to residents, but not exceeding S$ 500 million at any one time. 
Could Singapore please explain the rationale behi nd these limitations and would it perhaps consider 
relaxing them at an appropriate time. WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 44  
 
 Singapore maintains a two tier banking regime that distinguishes between retail and wholesale 
banking.  Since Wholesale Banks are by definition supposed to focus on wholesale banking activities, 
there are limits on their ability to conduct  retail deposit taking activities.  We have no plans to 
remove the distinction between retail and wholesale banking 
Similarly, Offshore Banks, as the name suggest s, are supposed to focus on non-Singapore dollar 
business and business with non-residents.  As such, there are limits on the extent of business they can 
undertake with residents.  We have over time relaxed  restrictions on the operations of Offshore Banks, 
for example, we have progressively raised the amoun t of S$ loans they can extend to residents from 
$100 million before 1995 to S$500 million currently.  We  will continue to assess the situation before 
deciding on further liberalisation measures. 
11. Box IV.1 on page 79 and para graph 41 show that there are fi ve categories of banking and non-
banking licensing institutions operating in Singa pore - full banks, wholesale banks, offshore banks, 
merchant banks and finance companies. 
Could Singapore please explain the licensing requirements for each category of banking and non-
banking institutions, and also explain the rationale behind the classification?  
12. As indicated in paragraph 41 of the report,  offshore banks may be upgraded to wholesale 
banks depending on their financial strength and ability to contribute to  Singapore’s financial industry.  
Could Singapore please provide more information about  the criteria applied in this respect?  We 
would also appreciate knowing more about the upgrad e requirements, if any, for other banking or non-
banking institutions. 
In considering applications for banking licences (incl uding applications for upgrade from one class of 
banking licence to another), MAS will consider factors such as the bank’s track record, international 
standing, reputation and financial soundness of its  applicant, strength of the home country 
supervision, whether the applicant has a well-devel oped strategy for banking and finance, and the 
adequacy of the applicant’s risk management.  Furt her information can be found on MAS website 
(www.mas.gov.sg) 
13. Paragraph 44 of the report mentions that fo reign banks in Singapore must satisfy Bank for 
International Settlement (BIS) cap ital adequacy  requirements.  
Could Singapore please explain the minimum BIS ratio  required of a foreign bank wishing to apply 
for the establishment of a branch.  As the report al so indicates that domestic banks are still subject to 
the same capital adequacy require ments as in 1999, does this mean that both foreign and domestic 
banks are subject to the same BIS criteria?  
MAS does not impose capital adequacy requirements on foreign bank branches.  What the Report 
meant is that foreign banks that wish to set up operations in Singapore must satisfy the BIS capital requirements (minimum capital ratio of 8%) at the parent bank level.  
With regard to banks incorporated in Singapo re, MAS recently revised the capital adequacy 
requirement from a total capital adequacy ratio of 12% , of which 8% must be Tier 1 capital, to 10% 
and 7%, respectively.  At the same time, we also made some adjustmen ts to the rules to calculate the 
capital adequacy ratio.  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 45 
 
 
 QUESTIONS FROM INDONESIA  
1. On page 6 of the Government Report rega rding Growth in Merchandise and Services and 
Secretariat Report page 12 Chart I.2 – Product Co mposition of merchandise tr ade, 1999 and 2003, we 
note that the Singapore export rose 4.6% as well as Import at 7.0%.  The total of export and import value of Singapore during the year 1999 through 20 03 can be seen in the Tables of the two Reports. 
Question
: 
- Does the total amount of export and import as stated above (in table 3:  Singapore's trade 
performance) also include the merchandise data  between Singapore and Indonesia?  If so, how 
does the Singapore reconcile the date with othe r countries since the merchandise data between 
Indonesia and Singapore were made not in H.S. Coding System and WTO IDB Format. 
No, the figures shown in Table 3: Singapore's Tr ade Performance do not include the merchandise 
trade data between Singapore and Indonesia.  Chart I.2 of the Secretariat Report is also based on 
these figures. 
To provide some background, for the last 29 years, Singapore has annually handed over data on its 
trade with Indonesia to the Indonesian Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs, and the Minister of Trade and Indu stry, through our Ambassador in Jakarta. This 
arrangement of Singapore not publicly releasing trade data on Indonesia was based on a mutual 
understanding reached by the leaders of Indonesia and Singapore in 1974.  
Singapore calculates its trade figures on a different bas is from Indonesia.  Therefore, differences in 
the respective trade figures are inevitable.  It was to avoid misunderstandings over reconciling these 
statistical differences that in 1974, in the in terest of overall good bilateral relations between 
Singapore and Indonesia, both sides agreed on the mu tual arrangement regarding the handing over of 
bilateral trade figures. However, Singapore had al ways informed Indonesia that we would have no 
problems should Indonesia choose to publish the data. It was only in July 2003, that the Indonesia 
government requested for the current arrangement to be discontinued.   Singapore has therefore made 
public the 2003 trade data between Singapore and Indonesia in January 2004. 
2. On page 112 of the Secretariat Report regard ing Status of selected notification to the WTO, 
January 2000 to January 2004, we see that the Si ngapore notification for the purpose of Integrated 
Data base (IDB) in the year 2002 and 2003 does not appear in the table. 
Questions
: 
- Why this notification is not included in the table of selected notification? - Has Singapore already notified trade data sta tistic in the year 2002 and 2003 to the Market 
Access Committee for the IDB purposes.  If not , will Singapore include trade merchandise 
between Indonesia and Singapore in its next notification?  Please explain. 
Due to the changes in internal data systems, Si ngapore will be sending our notification for the years 
2002 and 2003 to the Market Access Committee in early July 2004.  However, this notification will 
not include trade merchandise between Indonesia and Si ngapore.  This is because, Singapore trade 
data with Indonesia is currently not presented in th e WTO IDB format.  It has been prepared under a 
different set of procedures to generate statisti cs in line with the aforementioned 1974 agreement 
between both countries.  Data on Singapore's merch andise trade with Indonesia will be included in WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 46  
 
 our future submissions only upon the completion of our preparation for accession to the HS 
Convention of the World Customs Organisation.  The relevant authorities are working on this, and the 
whole process will take about two years.  The st atistics will be published in accordance with 
international requirements. 
QUESTIONS FROM BRAZIL
 
i) Services 
1. In document WT/TPRJS/130, on pages 20 and 21, it is stated that ASE AN is seeking deeper 
liberalization to trade in services through nego tiating rounds. How are these negotiations being 
conducted? What are the results achieved so far? 
In general, ASEAN has specialized bodies to implem ent its various economic ag reements.  In the area 
of services, ASEAN has established the Coordi nating Committee on Services (CCS), comprising 
officials from all member countries, to impl ement the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services 
(AFAS) signed in 1995. 
The ASEAN CCS is currently negotiating its 3rd round of services negotiations (except for air 
transport and financial services) which was launched in 2002 and will be conc luded by end 2004.   
The liberalization on trade in services  would cover all four modes of service supply.   Specifically, 
ASEAN member countries should eliminate restricti ons among member countries through the removal 
of all limitations for modes 1 (cross-border supply)  and 2 (consumption abroad) and to progressively 
liberalize for mode 3 (commercial presence) and mode 4 (presence of natural person).  
2. Regarding document WT/TPR/S/130, page 21, it is stated that ASEAN is seeking to "remove 
remaining impediments to infra-ASEAN trade in services" paragraph 22). Does it refer to harmonization of domestic regulations? 
No, it does not refer to harmonization of domestic re gulations.  ASEAN member countries continue to 
eliminate restrictions in the various priority sector s, including the provision of greater transparency 
in the various domestic regulations.   ASEAN is also negotiating Mutual Recognition Arrangements 
(MRAs) to facilitate free flow of professional services in the region.  In this regard, the CCS is 
currently working with respective professional bodies  in ASEAN Member Countries to come up with 
the appropriate modality for concludi ng MRA for each professional service.  
3. Which sectors are covered within ASEAN's c ooperation with Australia and New Zealand on 
mutual recognition of skills (WT/TPR JS/130, page 21, paragraph 23)? 
Since the discussion has just begun, the secto rs are in the process of being identified. 
4. Table 11.2 of WT/TPRJS/130, page 23, show s that three Singapore's bilateral free-trade 
agreements have been based on positive lists, while the other two ha ve been based on negative lists. 
What was the "rationale" for the choice of these ty pes of lists? How has such change affected the 
process or the outcome of the negotiation? 
The choice of which approach to take is ultimat ely dependent on the ag reement reached between 
Singapore and its FTA partner.  Whether a positive list or negative list, our focus remains the 
achievement of a comprehensive, WTO-plus agreement.   
5. What is the specific classification of th e services "biotechnology services and industrial 
research", committed within the sub-sector "R&D services on natural sciences"?  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 47 
 
 
 There are no exact corresponding sub-sectoral CPC numbers for "biotechnology services" and 
"industrial research" under CPC 851 (Research and exp erimental development services on natural 
sciences and engineering).  Both services cover activities in bi otechnology services and industrial 
research. 
6. Singapore scheduled commitments across a ra nge of services under the GATS.  However, 
there are no commitments for the following : 
 a) Legal services; 
 b) Integrated engineering services;  c) Urban planning and landscape architectural services;  d) Advertising services;  e) Courier services (modes 1 and 3, market access);  f) Distribution services. 
Are there restrictions in Market Access and National Treatment that limit the provision of these 
services? 
There are limitations in some of these services. For example, the di stribution of certain products is 
subject to import prohibition and non-automatic  licensing requirements. We would be happy to 
discuss these issues bilaterally with Br azil and other interested delegations. 
ii) Government Procurement 
1. Regarding WT/TPR/S/130, p. 45, paragraph 59, which are the criteria used to characterize a 
"small business"? 
As the Singapore Government adopts open and tran sparent competition among potential bidders in 
our procurement, we do not have a definition of SM Es for the purpose of government procurement. 
This is in line with WTO-GPA, which requires Singapo re to accord equal treatm ent to all suppliers.  
As stewards of public monies, Singapore Government  does not set aside any part of our procurement 
for any group of suppliers. All bidders for our go vernment procurement have to compete, and only the 
one that gives the best value for money wins the tender. Such open and transparent competition in 
government procurement best ensures non-discrimina tion in favour or against any bidder, and helps 
us achieve the best value for mon ey in our procurement expenditure. 
2. Are companies from non-member countries of an y FTA with Singapore allowed to participate 
in open tenderings or in any other form of open tendering? If so, do Singapore governmental entities 
accept foreign documentation in the process of qualifyi ng suppliers in a tendering procedure? On what 
basis? 
The Singapore Government practices an open governme nt procurement regime. Notices of Intended 
Procurement can be viewed from the Internet at www.gebiz.gov.sg
 and all interested suppliers can 
participate in our procurements.   
Should specific requirements like pre-qualifications of tenderers be required in any specific tender, 
those conditions will be stated upfront clearly. With respect to recognition and acceptance of foreign 
documentation, that can only be dealt with on a case-to-case basis depending on the documentation 
concerned and the tender conditions for the procurement concerned.  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 48  
 
 3. Does Singapore use the Built Operate Transfer (B OT), or similar contracts, as a purchasing 
method? Is the Built Operate Transfer (BOT), or similar contracts, included in the coverage of 
commercial agreements that Singapore is negotiating or  in which it already takes part? Is it usually 
open to international competition? 
BOT procurement, if used, is subject to the same  principles of open competition, non-discrimination, 
transparency and value for money.   
iii) Anti-dumping 
1. According to WT/TPR/S/130, page 37, paragra ph 29, footnote 22, "the volume of imports is 
regarded as negligible if the volume of imports of the good in question from any one country accounts 
for less than 3% of imports of like goods into Singapore, unless the subject goods from countries which individually account for less th an 3% of imports of the like  goods in Singapore collectively 
account for more than 7% of imports of the like goods into Singapore".  Considering that Art. 5 .8 of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement does not define negligib le volume of "dumped imports" in an identical 
way, how is it assured the compatibility of the defin ition of negligible volume of imports established 
in Singaporean legislation and the definiti on adopted in the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement? 
The exact wording in our Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act (Chap 65B) 
(Section 24 (3)(b)) is "the volume of imports of the subject goods shall normally be regarded as 
negligible if the volume of imports of the subject  goods from a particular c ountry is found to account 
for less than 3% of imports of the like goods into  Singapore, unless the subject goods from countries 
which individually account for less than 3% of imports of the like goods in Singapore collectively 
account for more than 7% of imports of the like goods into Singapore. 
This is identical to the definition of negligible vo lume of "dumped imports" wi thin Article 5.8 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement, excep t for minor differences. 
2. Could Singapore clarify if in its legislation th ere is a parameter for the definition of negligible 
volume of subsidized imports? If so, what is it?  
Under Regulation 25(1) of Singapore's Counterva iling and Anti-Dumping Duties Regulations, the 
volume of subsidised imports from a count ry of export shall be regarded as negligible: 
(a) if the volume of subsidised imports from that country accounts for less than 3% of the 
total volume of imports of the like goods into Singapore, unless subsidised imports 
from countries which individually account for less than 3% of the total imports of the 
like goods into Singapore collectively account  for more than 7% of the total imports 
of the like goods into Singapore; or  
(b) where the country of export is a developing country, if the total volume of subsidised 
imports from that country accounts for less t han 4% of the total volume of imports of 
the like goods into Singapore, unless subsidised imports from developing countries 
which individually account for less than 4% of the total imports of the like goods into 
Singapore collectively account for more than 9%  of the total imports of the like goods 
into Singapore.  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 49 
 
 
 iv) Rules of Origin 
Under WT/TPR/S/130, chapter III, pa ge 35, paragraph 23, it is registered that Singapore applies rules 
of origin for preferential purposes . In the case that  a certificate of origin is required, could Singapore 
inform us the authorities that issue the certificate of origin? 
The Singapore Customs Department issues the certifica te of origin, where required under the various 
FTAs. 
v) Import Licensing 
Concerning WT/TPRJS/130, chapter III, page 36, paragraph 25, which are the values charged for 
licensing fees in order to cover administrative expenses on the processing of documents? 
The Government’s policy is not to impose licensing fees that are excessive.  Fees charged are broadly 
intended cover the cost of processing the applicatio n and is commensurate with the approximate cost 
of services rendered.  
QUESTIONS FROM VENEZUELA  
1. Both reports mention that "International En terprise Singapore" IE Singapore), is an agency 
whose role is to help Singapore-based comp anies grow and internationalize successfully, 
- Has this agency identified key markets in which it wishes to promote trade and 
investment? 
- If this is the case, what are the sectors and activities of priority interest for Singapore? 
- What are the incentives offered to promote trade and investment in these particular 
sectors and activities? 
IE Singapore currently has a global network of 36 offices around the world covering the regions of 
the Americas; China; Europe; North Asia & Pacific; South Asia, Middle East and Africa; and 
Southeast Asia.  IE Singapore continually reviews its  network of offices, in consultation with the 
business community. 
The activities of priority interest for Singapore are de termined pursuant to feedback from the business 
community.  Currently, the sectors of priority in terest include lifestyle, business services, transport 
and logistics, international trading, info-comm unications technology, infrastructure and electronic 
and precision engineering.   
Please refer to Secretariat Report (WT/TPR/S/130) for a listing of incentives offered by IE Singapore. 
2. Paragraph 21 of the Report of the Govern ment states that Singapore is currently in 
negotiations of a Free Trade Agreem ent with Mexico and Panama. We ha ve also taken note of the fact 
that Singapore views bilateral FTAs as a critical comp lement to efforts at the multilateral and regional 
level: 
- In this context, has Singapore identified in terest in bilateral negotiations with other 
latin american countries? 
- If this is the case, what are Singapore's priorities? WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
Page 50  
 
 Singapore has always maintained a strong interest in the Latin American countries.  As a founding 
member of the Forum for East Asia-Latin Am erica Cooperation (FEALAC),  Singapore has been an 
active member since its inception. 
Besides Mexico and Panama, Singapore has also commenced negotiations with Chile (and New 
Zealand) for a Pacific-Three Free Trade Agreement.   We are also actively considering enhancing 
economic linkages with Latin America through more concrete mechanism, including FTA.   
Singapore’s priority is to enter into comprehensive, WTO-consiste nt and WTO-plus agreements with 
partner economies that would expand trade and  create more economic opportunities for our 
respective business communities. 
3. The Report of the Secretariat (Chapter III, b, paragraph 19)mentions that Singapore charges 
excise duties on petroleum products (motor spirits) and that these rates are specific and range from 
5$4 .10 per decilitre (dal) to 5$7 .10 per dal ; 
- Could Singapore provide furt her details on the policy objective pursued by the levy of 
this duty? 
- Can this policy objective be pursued by  an ad valorem duty, which is more 
transparent and predictable? 
Both specific rate and ad valorem can be used to  fulfill our policy objective.  Both approaches are 
equally transparent since the rate of duty payable is fixed upfront.   The difference between the two is 
that the duty varies with respect to the amount of petrol
 consumed under the specific rate approach; 
while duty varies with respect to the total price  of petrol under the ad valorem  approach.  Since petrol 
prices fluctuate over time, we decided to adopt a sp ecific rate approach from 2003 onwards so as to 
provide businesses and motorists with greater certaint y with respect to petrol duties.  This approach 
can also avoid dampening consumer sentiment furt her when contractionary events- like oil price 
spikes - occur. 
ADDITIONAL REPLIES PROVIDED BY SINGAPORE 
AFTER THE MEETING 
CANADA'S QUERY OF FINANCIAL SERVICES  
Canada enquired during the meeting what Singapore meant by "a substantive level of activity" in 
Singapore's response to Canada's query on tax incentives for financial institutions. 
Objective criteria are in place to decide if a financial instituti on has carried out a sufficient 
"substantive level of activity" to qualify for the tax incentives.  These include the number of 
professionals performing the qualifying activities and the level of their expertise. 
EU'S QUERY ON ISI  
Brief explanation of ISI  
The ISI under the USSFTA allows importers of 266 fin ished products, which are already at zero duty 
on an MFN basis, to enjoy a waiver of the 0.21% Merchandise Processing Fee imposed by the US.  The benefit for Batam, Bintan and areas neighbourin g Singapore is an indirect one, a spill-over effect 
of the ISI by virtue of their geographical proxim ity to Singapore.  The ISI makes no specific reference 
to any country.  As no preferential duty is being ac corded to the products, there is no other specific  WT/TPR/M/130/Add.1 
 Page 51 
 
 
 origin criteria to be met for this initiative.  The onl y condition to be met is t hat the products have to be 
shipped from Singapore. 
Documentation procedures required  
The documentation procedure required when exporting ISI products from Singapore to US is the same 
as that required for normal exports.  The US import er declares that the products are imported into the 
US from Singapore.  The US Customs reserves the right  to verify the declaration within 5 years from 
the date of importation. 
__________